Retrieve recent incoming Telegram messages captured by the watcher, newest last. Filter by event count or ISO timestamp to review activity within a specific period.
Recent incoming messages captured by the watcher, newest last.
Args: limit: how many events. since: ISO timestamp lower bound, e.g. "2026-08-14T09:00:00+00:00".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description primarily adds the 'newest last' ordering and watcher-source context. It does not describe the resulting message shape or whether events are deduplicated, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by terse parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place and no irrelevant detail is included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the use case, ordering, and parameter semantics. It lacks details about the response format, but its simplicity and strong annotations make this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: limit as 'how many events' and since as an 'ISO timestamp lower bound' with a concrete example. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though limit could be more precise about bounds or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource ('incoming messages captured by the watcher') and a clear ordering ('newest last'), going well beyond the generic name tg_events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tg_history or tg_unread by identifying the watcher as the source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving recent watcher-captured incoming messages, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings or when it should be avoided. No alternatives are named, so the usage guidance is only inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.