Retrieve pending Telegram bot updates using limit, offset, and timeout parameters, with an optional bot token or connected environment settings.
Get Telegram bot updates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| bot_token | No | Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / bot_token / descriptionAdded value: +"Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "bot_token"
-]New value: +[]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds almost nothing beyond the name, omitting polling behavior, blocking semantics of timeout, offset handling, and whether updates are consumed or acknowledged.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content itself is under-specified for a tool with four parameters.
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 tool with four parameters, only one partially described, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return behavior, pagination via limit/offset, or what a timeout means, leaving the agent to infer critical operational details.
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 only 25%, with limit, offset, and timeout completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate by explaining how these parameters control update retrieval, leaving three of four parameters semantically opaque.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get Telegram bot updates.' An agent can understand the core operation, but the description does not distinguish this from sibling tools like telegram_read or telegram_search, which likely offer overlapping read functionality.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus telegram_read, telegram_search, or other Telegram-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like a bot token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.