TgPilot

search_chats

Find Telegram users, groups, and channels by name, @username, or phone number to locate the right chat for messaging, reading, or management.

Instructions

Find users, groups and channels by name, @username or phone.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_chats"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about matching semantics (prefix vs substring), result ordering, rate limits, or whether private/blocked entities are excluded. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but operational behavior of the search itself is entirely undisclosed.

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 repetition. It is arguably too terse for a tool with zero schema documentation, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and a multi-type result set (users vs groups vs channels), the description is thin: no pagination/limit behavior, no matching rules, no note on how the mixed entity types come back. The output schema offsets part of this, but the input and search semantics remain gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — it does usefully define what the required `query` accepts (name, @username, phone). The `limit` parameter and its default of 10 are never mentioned, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ("Find") plus the target resources (users, groups, channels) and the accepted identifier forms (name, @username, phone), so an agent knows exactly what entity type this resolves. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_messages, so the boundary between chat search and message search is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the obvious alternatives (search_messages, list_dialogs, get_chat_info) are never mentioned. An agent must infer that this is for locating entities rather than listing or reading them, which is plausible but unstated.

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