telegram_channel_getGet metadata for a public Telegram channel or group by username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Telegram public username (channel or group), with or without leading @. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the 'public' constraint, which is a meaningful limitation not captured elsewhere. It also specifies 'by username' as the lookup method. While it doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, the added context about public-only access and the read-only nature goes beyond the annotations, earning a 4.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is zero waste; it states the action, the resource, and the input in one line. This is an exemplar of conciseness.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The 'public' constraint and username-based lookup are covered. While return fields are unspecified, the read-only nature and simplicity make it adequate; a score above 4 would require more detail about output, and below 3 would be too harsh given the annotations.
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 schema description covers the parameter fully (100% coverage), including the format with or without leading '@'. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond restating 'by username', which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is correct because the schema handles the semantic burden.
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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('metadata for a public Telegram channel or group'), and the input method ('by username'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_channel_post_get and telegram_channel_posts_get, which focus on posts rather than metadata, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, the purpose is self-evident: it is the only tool for retrieving channel/group metadata, while siblings handle posts. Usage is implied rather than stated, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.