Read recent messages from a specific Telegram forum topic without marking it as read. Use it to monitor discussions while preserving unread status.
Read recent messages from one forum topic without marking it read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| topic_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the topic is not marked read, making this non-mutating. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, return shape, or required permissions, which are material for a 4-parameter read tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the non-marking-read constraint is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on 4 parameters means the description is the only channel for behavioral and parameter detail — and it provides almost none. For a tool with this structured-data vacuum it should say considerably more.
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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only loosely gestures at 'chat' and 'topic' via 'one forum topic' and never mentions limit, account, or the defaults, so the agent gets no syntax or format guidance from it.
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?
States a clear verb (Read) plus resource (recent messages from one forum topic) with a scoping qualifier (one forum topic). It distinguishes itself from read_chat and search_forum_topic implicitly, though it never names those siblings.
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 phrase 'without marking it read' implies a peek-style use case, hinting when to prefer this over a read-that-consumes operation like get_unread. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus search_forum_topic, read_chat, or get_message_context, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.