chat_infoGet details about a single Telegram chat—kind, members, forum topics, active participants, and archive date coverage—to understand its context and message history.
Details of one chat: kind, members, forum topics, most active participants with usernames, and archive coverage (first and last message).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what data is exposed (member lists, usernames of most active participants, archive boundary), but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or behavior when the chat is missing or inaccessible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload without padding. It is dense but every clause maps to a distinct returned field.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is partly redundant, and the genuinely missing piece, the accepted identifier format for 'chat', is not addressed. Adequate for a simple read, but incomplete on the only input an agent must produce.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'chat' has 0% schema description coverage and accepts either a string or an integer, yet the description never explains what form the identifier takes (username, title, numeric ID). The description does not compensate for the schema gap on the one parameter an agent must supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb-plus-resource ('Details of one chat') and enumerates the returned data (kind, members, forum topics, top participants, archive coverage), which clearly separates it from list_chats. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the singular 'one chat' scope makes the distinction inferable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_chats for enumeration. Usage is only implied by the word 'one chat'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.