TgPilot

get_chat_info

Retrieve details for a Telegram user, group, or channel, including bio, member list, and links, to inspect chat context before acting.

Instructions

Details of a user, group or channel (bio, members, links).

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": {
      "chat": "<chat>"
    },
    "name": "get_chat_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, whether private chats are allowed, or how links are resolved. The output schema covers return fields, but behavioral constraints remain undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is terse but not padded; the only weakness is that its brevity leaves important ambiguities unresolved.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema covers return values, which reduces the description's burden. However, for a one-parameter lookup across multiple entity types, the description should clarify the input identifier format and differentiate from similar sibling tools; it does neither.

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?

The single parameter 'chat' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'chat' may refer to a user, group, or channel but does not explain accepted identifier formats (username, ID, phone, link) or whether the identifier type changes the result.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('a user, group or channel') and the data returned (bio, members, links). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like get_me, get_participants, or search_chats, which cover overlapping entity types.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as search_chats, list_dialogs, get_participants, or get_me. It gives no preconditions or exclusions.

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