Import your Telegram dialog list and recent messages into a local search mirror for offline searching.
Sync dialog list and recent messages into the local search mirror
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": "sync"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Sync ... into the local search mirror' implies a local mutation, but it does not disclose whether it is incremental or full-refresh, whether it overwrites or merges existing mirror data, whether it blocks until complete, or any auth/rate-limit constraints.
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 verb and states the target store. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), but the key operational questions remain unanswered: is this a prerequisite for 'search', is the mirror wiped or appended, and does the call return before or after the mirror is updated. For a state-mutating sync with zero structured support, this leaves an agent guessing.
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 is nothing to document and the schema cannot be a source of confusion. Baseline 4 applies; the description's mention of scope (dialogs + recent messages) at least characterizes what the implicit sync covers.
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?
Specific verb (sync) plus concrete resources (dialog list and recent messages) and a named destination (the local search mirror), which is far more informative than the bare name 'sync'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as 'cached', 'grab', 'search', or 'export', which also deal with local/remote 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?
The description never says when an agent should call this — e.g. before running 'search', after login, or on a schedule. There are no preconditions, no cadence guidance, and no exclusions relative to dozens of sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.