Read recent and unread Telegram conversations without marking them as read, so you can review inbox activity safely. Returns scan-scoped counts for returned, unread, and raw scanned messages.
Returns a read-only projection of recent and unread conversations without marking anything read. Output contains page/scan-scoped returned_count, unread_in_scan, and raw_scanned_count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| unread_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-beta.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and does not mark conversations as read, and it explains the output counters (`returned_count`, `unread_in_scan`, `raw_scanned_count`). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination/cursor behavior, but the core safety behavior is clearly stated.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and safe-operation behavior, then followed by output metadata. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetitive or filler content.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description partially compensates by explaining the returned counters and the non-mutating behavior. However, for a tool with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete because it does not explain how to use `limit`, `cursor`, or `unread_only`.
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 any of the three parameters (`limit`, `cursor`, `unread_only`). It refers vaguely to 'recent and unread' conversations but does not map that to the `unread_only` parameter or explain pagination via `cursor`/`limit`.
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 and resource: it 'Returns a read-only projection of recent and unread conversations.' That makes the basic purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `telegram_chats_list` or other conversation-listing tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 identifies the kind of data returned (recent/unread conversations) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as `telegram_chats_list` or `telegram_messages_search`. The only usage-relevant statement is that it does not mark anything read, which is behavioral rather than alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.