telegram_get_messageRetrieve a single text message from a linked Telegram account using its chat ID and message ID.
Fetch one text message available to the linked Telegram account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| message_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| trust_boundary | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful constraints: only text messages and only those available to the linked account, which clarifies behavior relative to the media sibling. It is consistent with all annotations and contradicts none.
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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, object, and availability constraint without extraneous detail.
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 simple parameterized read operation, the definition is complete: annotations cover safety and idempotence, an output schema exists, and the description adds the text-message constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool successfully is missing.
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 0%, and the description does not explain chat_id or message_id, their formats, or how they identify the target message. The property names are moderately self-evident, but the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already lists.
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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' with a precise resource ('one text message') and an explicit scope ('available to the linked Telegram account'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like telegram_search_messages (search vs. single retrieval) and telegram_get_media (text vs. 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 implies usage for retrieving a single known message by identifiers, but it never states when to prefer this tool over telegram_search_messages, telegram_get_context, or telegram_get_media. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.