TgPilot

leave_chat

Leave a Telegram group or channel, or delete a private dialog, to remove it from the account and stop future messages.

Instructions

Leave a group/channel or delete a private dialog.

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": "leave_chat"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

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 burden, and it discloses almost nothing. Critically, "leave" and "delete a private dialog" are very different in reversibility — deleting a dialog may destroy conversation history irrecoverably — yet the sentence presents them as equivalent with no warning. There is also no mention of permission constraints (e.g. whether a group owner can leave) or what happens to message history after leaving.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the primary operation and no filler. Every clause carries information about the tool's scope.

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 is present, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only one parameter. However, for an unannotated mutation tool whose private-dialog branch is potentially destructive, the definition leaves out the one thing an agent most needs before calling it: what is lost.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single required `chat` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no format detail (ID, @handle, or display name). It does add a small amount of meaning by implying the parameter's domain spans both groups/channels and private dialogs, which the schemaless string type does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Leave a group/channel or delete a private dialog") and helpfully disambiguates the two object types the single `chat` parameter can refer to. It does not name the sibling `join_chat` as the inverse, so the differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the asymmetric consequence of the two modes. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is the inverse of `join_chat` and that the private-dialog case is destructive.

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