Telegram MCP — Next Generation

List Banned and Restricted Group Members

get_banned_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

List banned and restricted members in a Telegram group or supergroup with restriction reasons to audit moderation; requires admin permission.

Instructions

List all banned and restricted members in a group or supergroup with restriction reasons. Use when auditing group moderation. Requires admin permission in the target group.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No	Optional account label for multi-account environments. If omitted in single-mode, the default account is used. In multi-mode without an account, read-only tools fan out across all configured accounts.
`chat_id`	Yes	Target Telegram chat, group, supergroup, channel, or user identifier. Accepts numeric chat ID (e.g. -1001234567890 or 123456789), username (e.g. '@channel'), or phone number.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.1.1Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), lowering the bar. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the admin-permission requirement and the fact that restriction reasons are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then the usage trigger, then the prerequisite. No filler, though the prerequisite could arguably be merged.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, usage context, and the admin prerequisite, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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 (account, chat_id) are thoroughly documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details for either parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("banned and restricted members in a group or supergroup") with the additional detail of returning restriction reasons. The resource is inherently distinct from the closest sibling, get_admins, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from it.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear trigger ("Use when auditing group moderation") and a prerequisite ("Requires admin permission in the target group"). It does not state when-not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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