List chats with unread counts and last message previews to quickly review incoming Telegram activity.
List chats with unread count and last message preview
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "dialogs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no behavioral details. The description does not state whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it), nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. For a no-parameter list tool, such context would be valuable.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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?
While the description covers the basic purpose and return fields, it omits behavioral context (ordering, pagination, read-only nature) and does not help differentiate from siblings. It is minimally adequate given the lack of annotations and output schema, but gaps remain.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for zero params is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameters.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('chats') with added scope detail (unread count, last message preview). It is clear what the tool returns. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like 'messages' or 'topics', which also deal with chat content.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many list-adjacent tools (messages, topics, folders, pinned), but there is no guidance on selection. Usage is implied only by the description's content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.