Returns index statistics for Telegram community message history: total messages, per-chat breakdowns, and database size. Use it to monitor index coverage and storage.
Index statistics: total messages, per-chat breakdown, DB size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. It discloses the categories of data returned, but omits read-only status, side effects, permissions, or caching behavior. For a simple stats tool this is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and its contents with no filler or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It still lists the main statistics, which is sufficient for a no-parameter read tool. It could mention read-only safety, but the core context is complete.
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 no parameter semantics to explain. Per the scoring rules, zero parameters sets a baseline of 4.
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 names a specific resource ('Index statistics') and enumerates the contents ('total messages, per-chat breakdown, DB size'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_chats, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.
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?
It describes what statistics are returned but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_chats or search. There are no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.