telegram_chat_adminsList admins of a group or channel with their rights and custom ranks using an admin filter, avoiding scanning every member.
List the admins of a group or channel with the rights each one holds and their custom rank. Uses the dedicated admin filter, so it does not page through every member.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: what each entry contains (rights and custom rank) and the fact that it uses a dedicated server-side filter rather than enumerating members.
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?
Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the efficiency note second; nothing is wasted or redundant.
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?
For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, describing the return contents is a plus. However, the total absence of parameter documentation leaves the caller guessing how to address the chat, which is a real gap for a tool whose only required argument is that identifier.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% with two parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It never explains the required 'chat' identifier format (username vs numeric ID) nor the 'limit' parameter's default of 50 and max of 200.
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 (List) and resource (admins of a group or channel), plus the returned detail (rights held, custom rank). The 'dedicated admin filter, so it does not page through every member' clause implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling telegram_chat_members, which returns all members.
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?
The efficiency clause ('does not page through every member') hints that this is the preferred path over listing all members, but no sibling is named and there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.