Retrieve the list of administrators in a Telegram chat. Use it to identify admins and their roles from a chat ID or @username, optionally including bots.
Get a list of administrators in a chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat ID or @username | |
| return_bots | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds no further operational context, such as access requirements, failure cases, which administrator roles are included, or what information is returned for each administrator.
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 single sentence is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. It is easy to scan, although its extreme brevity leaves no room for differentiating or operational 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?
For a simple two-parameter read operation, the definition is sufficient for a basic invocation using the required, documented chat_id, with annotations covering mutation safety. It remains only minimally complete because return_bots is unexplained and, with no output schema, there is no additional detail about the returned administrator entries or relevant access limitations.
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 already explains that chat_id accepts a chat ID or @username, and the description adds nothing about that parameter. The optional return_bots boolean is undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving its effect and default behavior unclear.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: retrieving the list of administrators for a chat. Its scope is understandable alongside siblings such as get_chat_member and get_chat_member_count, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.
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?
Usage is implied: select this tool when an administrator roster is needed rather than general chat information. However, there is no explicit comparison with get_chat_member for inspecting one member, nor any prerequisites or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.