telegram_chat_membersList participants of a Telegram group or channel when permitted, returning each ID, name, username, and role for admin checks or outreach.
List participants of a group/channel (if permitted). Returns id, name, username, role.
| 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful 'if permitted' caveat (a permission requirement beyond the annotations) and the return fields, but says nothing about pagination or how limit affects results.
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 core action front-loaded and the return shape immediately following. No filler, though the parenthetical caveat is slightly buried rather than integrated into the sentence flow.
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 listing tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields (id, name, username, role) is the right instinct. However the permission precondition stays hand-wavy and the limit/pagination behavior is entirely absent, leaving gaps for an agent invoking a paged 500-item list.
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% and neither parameter is documented by the schema, so the description must compensate. It does not: 'chat' is only implied by the group/channel phrasing, and 'limit' (default 100, max 500) is never explained or bounded.
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 and resource ('List participants of a group/channel') and adds the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name the closest sibling telegram_chat_admins, so the boundary between 'all members' and 'admins only' is left implicit.
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 only usage signal is the parenthetical '(if permitted)', which hints at a permission precondition but is vague about when listing works. There is no guidance on when to choose this over telegram_chat_admins or telegram_common_chats, and no exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.