Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

telegram-mcp-cli

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Search messages

search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find Telegram messages by text within a single chat or across your entire account. Use it to locate conversations, verify details, or gather context.

Instructions

Search message text, either inside one chat or across the whole account when no peer is given.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
peerNoLimit to one chat. Omit to search everywhere.
limitNoHow many results. Default 20, max 100.
queryYesText to search for.
fieldsNoComma separated fields to keep, e.g. 'id,text'. Dotted paths descend. Cuts response size.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope-routing behavior but says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond limit, or rate limits, so it adds only marginal context beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then the scoping rule. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete; it covers the one non-obvious behavior (scope when peer is absent). Missing only minor details like result ordering or pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the peer-omission semantics the description restates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (message text) plus the scope behavior (one chat vs whole account). An agent can distinguish it from history (browse a chat) and get_chat without needing the schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly explains the condition that switches scope: pass peer to search one chat, omit it to search the whole account. It gives concrete usage context but does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., history) or state when not to use search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools