Retrieve Telegram dialogs (chats, groups, channels, bots) newest first. Filter by title, limit, archived, or unread status to find specific conversations.
List dialogs (private chats, groups, channels, bots), newest first. Filter by title with query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| archived | No | ||
| unread_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and the filter capability, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, whether archived chats are included by default, or what the response shape is. For a read-only listing tool, the lack of behavioral detail beyond ordering is a gap.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the filter hint. No wasted words, though the second sentence could have been more informative about the other parameters.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. But with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should explain the key parameters (limit, archived, unread_only) and any default filtering behavior. It's adequate for a simple list tool but leaves meaningful gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `query` ('Filter by title') but says nothing about `limit`, `archived`, or `unread_only`. The description adds some meaning for one parameter but leaves three parameters entirely to the schema, which only provides names and defaults.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('dialogs'), and enumerates the dialog types (private chats, groups, channels, bots) plus ordering ('newest first'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chat_info and read_messages, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 context: it's the listing/exploration tool for dialogs, and the `query` filter is mentioned. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like search_messages or chat_info, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., archived chats are hidden by default).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.