Search messages in a specified Telegram chat by query and chat ID to find relevant conversations without manual scrolling.
Search Telegram messages in a chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| 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",
- "chat_id",
- "query"
-]New value: +[
+ "chat_id",
+ "query"
+]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 safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond purpose – no mention of search semantics (substring matching? case sensitivity?), result limits, recency scope, or pagination behavior that would matter for a search operation.
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 efficient sentence with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. It's arguably too terse for a 3-parameter search tool, but the sentence itself is well-formed and not padded.
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 search tool with no output schema and only 33% param coverage, the description should say what results look like (message objects, counts, ordering) and what chat_id accepts. None of this is present, leaving key caller questions unanswered.
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% (only bot_token documented). The description loosely implies chat_id identifies the chat and query is the search term, but doesn't specify whether chat_id takes a numeric ID, @username, or channel handle, nor does it explain query matching behavior. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 specific verb (Search) and resource (Telegram messages) with a scope qualifier ('in a chat'), which distinguishes it from telegram_send and telegram_get_updates. It doesn't explicitly contrast with telegram_read, but the search semantics are clearly different.
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 'in a chat' implies the tool is scoped to a single conversation, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use search vs telegram_read or telegram_get_updates, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.