Read Telegram messages and updates with limit and offset pagination, optionally supplying a bot token when not configured in UnClick or the environment.
Read Telegram messages/updates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether this is a long-poll or a paged fetch, what limit/offset do, whether a bot token is required, or what happens with zero updates. With annotations carrying the read-only/idempotent story, the description's extra value is near zero.
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?
It is a single short fragment with no waste, but the "messages/updates" slash construction is vague rather than front-loaded information. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 3-parameter network-read tool with no output schema and a crowded sibling set, the description leaves the agent without paging behavior, return shape, or sibling differentiation. Given it overlaps almost entirely with telegram_get_updates, this is a significant completeness gap.
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 coverage is only 33% — bot_token is documented in the schema, but limit and offset are bare numbers with no defaults, bounds, or meaning. The description does not compensate at all: it never mentions paging, maximum batch size, or what offset refers to (update_id vs. record offset), which is the key semantic ambiguity for this tool.
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?
"Read Telegram messages/updates" gives a verb (read) and a resource (Telegram messages), so the basic purpose is legible. But it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings such as telegram_get_updates, telegram_search, and telegram_send, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer — despite telegram_get_updates and telegram_search existing in the same family. The only implicit guidance is the word "Read", which is not enough to route between overlapping Telegram readers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.