Retrieve details about a Telegram chat member by providing the chat ID or @username and user ID, so you can check membership and access member information.
Get information about a member in a chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat ID or @username | |
| user_id | Yes | User ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond that, such as error handling or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional context.
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 core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. This is an ideal level 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (two parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it. It could be enhanced by mentioning the return type (ChatMember), but the core purpose is clear.
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%, with both chat_id and user_id documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct since schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Get information about a member in a chat' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (member in a chat), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_chat_member_count or get_chat_administrators. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't specify what 'information' includes, keeping it from a full 5.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for a single member, contrast with get_chat_administrators, or any exclusions. A single-sentence description with no usage context earns a 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.