TgPilot

join_chat

Join a public Telegram channel or group using an @name or t.me/+hash invite link to add it to the user's account.

Instructions

Join a public channel/group (@name) or an invite link (t.me/+hash).

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": {
      "link": "<link>"
    },
    "name": "join_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`link`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 for a mutation tool. It says nothing about what happens if you are already a member, whether an expired or revoked invite fails, whether the call is idempotent, or whether joining triggers a visible event in the chat. Only the accepted input formats are disclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the accepted input forms immediately following. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the input format is covered. However, for a membership-changing tool with no annotations, the absence of any failure-mode or side-effect information leaves a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% – the single 'link' parameter is documented nowhere else – so the description must compensate, and it does: it tells the agent the value can be either a bare @name or a t.me/+hash invite URL. That is a meaningful format clarification the schema does not provide.

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 gives a specific verb ('Join') and resource ('a public channel/group'), and it names the two accepted identifier forms (@name or t.me/+hash). That distinguishes it from leave_chat and invite_users, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied – you use this to become a member of a channel or group you are not yet in – but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (public vs. private, valid invite required), and no routing to alternatives such as search_chats or invite_users.

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