channel_statsFull record for one channel by @username: subscribers, category, language, trust score, description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Channel @username (with or without @) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the nature of the operation (retrieving a full record), but it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the channel must exist, what happens when a username is not found, or any rate limiting or authorization requirements. This is thinner than expected for a tool with no annotation support.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full record for one channel') and compresses the returned fields into a colon-separated list. There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the input (username) and the output structure (subscribers, category, language, trust score, description). There is no output schema, so listing these fields is valuable. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., nonexistent channel) and any prerequisites, though given the simplicity of the tool this is a minor gap. Overall, it feels complete for the tool's scope.
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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter, 'username', is described as 'Channel @username (with or without @)'. The description's mention of '@username' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail. Since the schema is complete and unambiguous, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Full record for one channel by @username,' and enumerates the returned attributes (subscribers, category, language, trust score, description). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like best_channels_by_category or market_listings, which serve different resources or purposes.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for fetching a single channel's details by username, but it does not mention when not to use it, any prerequisites, or reference sibling tools. Sibling names are present in context, but the description does not leverage them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct data need: ranked channel discovery, exact channel lookup, marketplace listings, marketplace stats, post-content search, and catalog entity search. Even the two search tools are clearly separated by whether they search post content or Telegram catalog entries.
Names are readable and consistently snake_case, but they mix verb-led names like search_posts and search_telegram with noun-led names like channel_stats, market_listings, market_stats, and best_channels_by_category. The market_* and search_* pairs are helpful, but there is no uniform verb_noun pattern across the set.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a Telegram catalog and search server. Each tool earns its place by covering channel discovery, channel lookup, post search, and marketplace data without redundancy.
The read-only surface is largely complete: search, top channels, exact stats, and marketplace stats/listings are all covered. A direct way to retrieve recent posts for a specific channel or enumerate all categories would close the remaining minor gaps.