Downloads media from a specified Telegram message and saves it to a local file. Provide chat ID, message ID, and destination path to retrieve photos, videos, or documents directly.
Download media from a Telegram message to a local file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chatId | Yes | Chat ID or username | |
| messageId | Yes | Message ID containing media | |
| downloadPath | Yes | Absolute path to save file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.36.5v1.36.3v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds 'download' which implies reading but also local file writing, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting files or required permissions, so it adds limited value beyond annotations.
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 description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise for a straightforward tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 simple params, no output schema, annotations provided), the description is minimally complete. However, it omits details like error handling for missing media, file type, or size limits, which could be important for agent usage.
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 100%, with all three parameters having clear descriptions (chatId, messageId, downloadPath). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond these schema descriptions, hence the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the verb 'download', resource 'media from a Telegram message', and outcome 'to a local file'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sending messages or searching, as it's the only tool focused on downloading media.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when a message contains text vs media, or prerequisites like having access to the chat and message. It implicitly assumes the user knows when to download, but no explicit usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.