TgPilot

read_comments

Retrieve comments under a Telegram channel post to review replies and discussion for moderation or analysis.

Instructions

Comments under a channel post.

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "post_id": "<post_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`channel`	Yes
`post_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost none: it does not confirm read-only semantics, ordering, pagination, whether replies/threads are included, or permission requirements. Only the implicit notion of a read scoped to a post is conveyed.

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?

The single fragment is free of waste and front-loaded, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than economy. There is no structure to speak of, just one noun phrase.

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 explained, but the definition still omits what a 3-parameter, unannotated read tool needs: mutation safety, pagination/limit behavior, and the meaning of the required identifiers. For a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description support, this leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — channel, post_id, and limit (default 30) are left to bare property names. Since coverage is far below 50%, the description should compensate for limit/pagination and channel identifier format, and it does not.

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 'Comments under a channel post' identifies the resource and its scope (comments belonging to a post), which distinguishes it loosely from read_messages and read_comments-adjacent siblings. However, it is a bare noun fragment with no verb, so it never states that the tool retrieves or lists anything, leaving the agent to infer the operation.

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, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a channel and post_id, and no reference to alternatives like read_messages for the post body itself. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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