Skip to main content
Glama
kotlogramme

kotlogramme

List blocked people

telegram_list_blocked
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the people you have blocked, newest block first, and supports cursor pagination so you can retrieve additional blocked accounts page by page.

Instructions

Lists the people the user has blocked, newest block first. When the page is full the result has 'next_cursor'; pass it back as 'cursor' for more.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "telegram_list_blocked"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many people to return.
cursorNoThe 'next_cursor' of the previous page, to continue after it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the sort order and the pagination contract ('next_cursor' returned when the page is full, passed back as 'cursor'). It does not discuss result size defaults or whether blocked-user entries include identifiers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, followed by the pagination instruction. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 usefully explains the one non-obvious return field ('next_cursor') and how to consume it, which is the main thing an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read tool, lacking only detail on what each blocked entry contains.

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 both parameters already carry their own descriptions including the cursor round-trip note, so the description mostly restates what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the people the user has blocked') plus a result ordering ('newest block first'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools like telegram_list_contacts. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 by the resource name — an agent can infer this is the tool for blocked users, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool. No prerequisites or permission context is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.