Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tg-agent

tg-agent

by Creatfire
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Resolve chat

tg_resolve_chat
Read-only

Resolve Telegram chats and links to retrieve IDs, titles, member counts, join status, and latest message IDs; inspect invite links without joining.

Instructions

Resolve a chat or link: id, title, about, member count, public or not, joined or not, latest message id. Also inspects invite links (t.me/+xxx) without joining.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chat": "<chat>"
    },
    "name": "tg_resolve_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYesChat: @username, username, t.me link, t.me/c/<id> link, or numeric id such as -100123…
accountNoAccount id (see tg_list_accounts). Defaults to the default account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding behavior beyond that: it lists exactly which attributes come back and states the non-obvious guarantee that inspecting an invite link does not join the chat. It stops short of covering failure modes for unresolvable links or account-related limits.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the invite-link special case. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Annotations carry the safety story and the schema carries parameter forms, leaving only minor gaps around error behavior for invalid or inaccessible links.

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%, and the schema already enumerates every accepted form (username, t.me link, t.me/c link, numeric id) plus the default-account behavior. The description's "chat or link" phrasing adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description pairs a specific verb ("Resolve") with a clear resource ("a chat or link") and then enumerates the resolved attributes: id, title, about, member count, public/joined flags, latest message id. That is far more informative than a tautology and lets an agent distinguish this metadata lookup from message-level siblings like tg_get_message or tg_list_dialogs, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the tool is for turning any chat reference into metadata, and the second sentence flags a specific case (invite links t.me/+xxx) handled without joining. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over catalog-style tools such as tg_list_dialogs, nor any exclusion or precondition.

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