TgPilot

block_user

Block or unblock a Telegram user to manage unwanted contact and restore access when needed.

Instructions

Block or unblock a user.

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": {
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "block_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	Yes
`unblock`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that the tool is bidirectional (block or unblock). It says nothing about required permissions, whether blocking removes existing messages or affects shared chats, or whether the action is reversible — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a mutation tool with two undocumented parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter coverage the description should explain permissions, side effects, and the meaning of `unblock`. None of that is present, leaving the definition thin for a state-changing operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, but it only implicitly hints that the `unblock` flag toggles mode. The `user` parameter's expected format (ID, username, handle) is left entirely unspecified.

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 names a specific verb pair (block/unblock) and the resource (user), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since no other sibling touches user blocking, though it also doesn't state which platform/user namespace it applies to.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to block versus when to unblock, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or consequences. The agent must infer from the single `unblock` boolean which mode it is in.

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