telegram-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search messages

telegram_search_messages

Read-only

Search messages in a Telegram chat by full-text query; returns newest matches first with hasMore and nextOffsetId for paging deeper.

Instructions

Full-text search within a chat. Returns matching messages newest-first (max 100 per page). The answer carries hasMore and nextOffsetId for paging deeper into the matches.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chat": "<chat>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "telegram_search_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`offsetId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, a 100-per-page cap, and the hasMore/nextOffsetId paging contract. Since there is no output schema, disclosing the return fields is valuable rather than redundant.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the search scope is front-loaded and pagination details follow in dependency order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations about returns, the description covers the response contract well but leaves the two required parameters' expected formats unspecified. Adequate but with a clear gap an agent would have to guess past.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters, and the description never explains what 'chat' accepts (username, id, link?) or what 'query' matches. It only alludes to the max-100 limit and the offsetId paging cursor, leaving chat/query/limit semantics undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search within a chat') and scopes it to a single chat, which implicitly separates it from telegram_search_global. It stops short of naming the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is only implied by 'within a chat' – an agent can infer this is the in-chat variant versus the global search, but no condition or alternative tool is named. No guidance on prerequisites or when a history listing would be preferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server