TgPilot

get_participants

Retrieve members from a Telegram group or channel to inspect membership; filter by query and set a result limit, with admin rights required for channels.

Instructions

Members of a group or channel (admin rights required for channels).

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_participants"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes
`limit`	No
`query`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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, and it discloses only one trait: admin rights are needed for channels. It says nothing about whether limit is a page size, whether query filters by name, how results are ordered, or whether the call fails for non-member or DM chats.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The reader learns the resource type but not the operation or how to call it correctly.

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 not be described, but for a three-parameter tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage the definition leaves too much to inference. The admin-rights note is the only operational detail provided.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It adds only that "chat" refers to a group or channel; limit and query (apparently a filter string) are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase "Members of a group or channel" identifies the resource being retrieved but is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that this lists participants. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling get_chat_info, which plausibly covers overlapping ground.

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 a partial prerequisite ("admin rights required for channels"), which is useful, but no guidance on when to choose this over get_chat_info, list_dialogs, or search_chats. No exclusions are stated, such as whether it works on direct chats or only groups/channels.

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