TgPilot

invite_users

Add one or more users to a Telegram group or channel with TgPilot so AI agents can manage membership through natural language.

Instructions

Add users to a group or channel.

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>",
      "users": "<users>"
    },
    "name": "invite_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes
`users`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a mutation. It does not say whether the caller needs admin rights, whether invitees receive notifications, whether existing members cause errors, or what happens for invalid users. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the operational behavior of the write is undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

For a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain permissions, user identifier format, and failure behavior. The output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input-side and behavioral gaps remain substantial.

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 both parameters ('chat' and 'users') are undocumented in structured form. The description only implies that 'chat' may be a group or channel and that multiple users are accepted; it says nothing about whether users are IDs, usernames, or phone numbers, which is the key ambiguity for an array of strings.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('users') with the target scope ('a group or channel'), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like join_chat (self-join) or create_group (new group). It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the caller already be a member/admin?), and no pointer to alternatives such as join_chat or create_group. The agent must infer the entire selection context from the one-line purpose.

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