Read-only public statistics for Telegram groups tracked by Limzo (https://limzo.com), a group analytics bot. Two tools: get_global_stats (network-wide totals) and get_group_stats (activity, engagement, top members, achievements for a group by its public slug - the last part of its https://limzo.com/s/ URL; browse https://limzo.com/groups/ to find groups). Privacy-safe: payloads never include verbatim member messages. No authentication required. Docs: https://limzo.com/docs/
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct scope: global network stats, specific group stats, and group discovery. There is no overlap or ambiguity among the three.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern: get_global_stats, get_group_stats, list_groups. The convention is consistent and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a stats-retrieval server. Each tool earns its place, covering global, group-level, and discovery use cases.
The tool surface covers all core access patterns: global stats, per-group stats, and group search. No obvious gaps or dead ends exist for the stated purpose.
get_global_statsGet network-wide Limzo totalsACall this for network-wide numbers across all public Telegram groups tracked by Limzo (group count, messages, active users, replies, reactions, karma — 7-day and all-time) plus durable lifetime totals (messages analyzed, members tracked, spam messages removed) and the current top groups by Limzo Score. For finding a specific group, prefer list_groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| docs | No | Human-readable API documentation. |
| stats | Yes | |
| openapi | No | Machine-readable OpenAPI document for the REST API. |
| top_groups | No | Current top public groups by Limzo Score. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the full scope of returned data (7-day and all-time metrics, lifetime totals, top groups). It does not mention rate limits or side effects, but these are unlikely for a read-only aggregate tool.
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 the core purpose and followed by a helpful disambiguation. Every phrase adds information without redundancy.
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?
Given the absence of parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It lists all data categories, mentions timeframes, and provides guidance relative to siblings, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving network-wide numbers across all public Telegram groups tracked by Limzo, with a specific list of metrics (group count, messages, active users, etc.). It explicitly contrasts with list_groups for finding specific groups, distinguishing it from the sibling tool.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: "For finding a specific group, prefer list_groups." This indicates when not to use this tool and suggests an alternative. The network-wide scope also implicitly separates it from get_group_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_group_statsGet public stats for one Telegram groupACall this when the user asks about the activity, health, leaderboard, mood, or trends of a specific Telegram group tracked by Limzo. slug is the last part of the group's public page URL, limzo.com/s/ (e.g. "hipo"). Returns the curated limzo.public_stats/v1 JSON: messages, replies, active members, daily series, top members, mood, reactions, language mix, the Limzo Levels ladder (lifetime XP + badge tiers), and weekly-league standings when the group has the league enabled. Optional range: 7d (default), 30d, all — the wider ranges only serve real data for groups on a paid plan and otherwise silently fall back to 7d, so check range.key in the result. Never includes verbatim member messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The group's public slug — the last part of its limzo.com/s/<slug> URL. | |
| range | No | Stats window. Defaults to 7d. 30d/all require the group's paid plan; free groups silently fall back to 7d. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| docs | No | Human-readable API documentation. |
| group | Yes | |
| range | Yes | The range actually served — compare `key` with what you requested to detect the plan fallback. |
| stats | Yes | |
| schema | Yes | |
| openapi | No | Machine-readable OpenAPI document for the REST API. |
| generated_at | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral facts: silent fallback to 7d for unpaid groups, the need to check range.key, and the guarantee 'Never includes verbatim member messages'. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.
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 dense but every sentence carries unique value: trigger conditions, slug explanation, return payload highlights, range caveat with actionable tip, and privacy guarantee. No redundant filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
Given the output schema exists and the tool is a read-only stats query, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what to expect in the return (including league condition), the only parameter nuance (range fallback), and a key constraint (no verbatim messages), leaving little ambiguity for the agent.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described, yet the description adds extra value by explaining the real-world meaning of slug (last part of URL with example) and the paid-plan fallback behavior for range. The advice to check range.key is a practical semantic hint not present in the schema.
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 opens with 'Call this when the user asks about the activity, health, leaderboard, mood, or trends of a specific Telegram group tracked by Limzo', which clearly states the tool's function and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'specific Telegram group' vs. global or listing tools.
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 explicitly says when to call ('when the user asks about... a specific Telegram group') and adds caveats about paid plans and silent fallback. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_global_stats or list_groups, so it stops short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_groupsList or search public Telegram groupsACall this to discover Telegram groups tracked by Limzo — to browse the directory, filter by language, or find a group's slug for get_group_stats. Optional query filters case-insensitively over group title, username, slug, and description. Optional lang (ISO 639-1, e.g. "fa", "es") keeps only groups where that language is a meaningful share of what members write — the way to answer "find active Persian/Spanish groups". Omit both to list the top groups by Limzo Score. Each row carries a language mix (primary language + top languages as percentages); rows also include slug, title, username, plan, member_count, 7-day messages and active members, score and page URLs, plus total_matches so you can tell when more groups matched than were returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ISO 639-1 language code (e.g. "fa", "es", "en"). Keeps only groups where that language is a meaningful share of the group. | |
| limit | No | Maximum groups to return. Defaults to 20, capped at 50. | |
| query | No | Keyword matched case-insensitively against group title, username, slug, and description. Omit to list the top groups by Limzo Score. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| docs | No | Human-readable API documentation. |
| lang | No | The applied ISO 639-1 language filter, or null when not filtering by language. |
| query | No | The normalized search keyword, or null when listing top groups. |
| groups | Yes | |
| openapi | No | Machine-readable OpenAPI document for the REST API. |
| total_matches | Yes | Groups that matched, before the limit was applied. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true; description adds that query matches case-insensitively on specific fields, lang filters by meaningful language share, returns detailed row data including language mix, total_matches, etc. No contradictions.
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?
Single paragraph, but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details, then result fields. Slightly dense but clear and efficient.
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?
Description covers purpose, parameters, usage scenarios, and result fields in detail. With output schema existing, the field list is adequate. Complements sibling tool usage. No 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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds extra context: query fields enumerated, lang behavior ('meaningful share'), limit defaults and cap. Provides operational nuance for parameter usage.
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?
Title and description clearly state the tool lists/searches Telegram groups. It specifies actions: browse directory, filter by language, find slug for get_group_stats. Distinguishes itself from siblings get_group_stats and get_global_stats.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: to browse, filter, or find slug. Provides parameter behavior: optional query filters case-insensitively, optional lang filters by language, omit both to list top groups. Implicitly suggests alternatives for stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
