Retrieve the member list of any Telegram group or channel. Specify a chat and optional search or limit to filter results, helping you audit access or find specific users.
List members of a group or channel (admin rights may be needed for channels).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a permission caveat (admin rights for channels), which is valuable, but omits other behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior, search semantics, or error cases. Partial disclosure only.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with a useful parenthetical. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. It could include more parameter detail without becoming bloated, but it is appropriately compact.
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 return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should at least hint at the optional limit/search parameters and when they matter. It does not, leaving the agent to infer from schema defaults.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'chat' refers to a group or channel, but gives no meaning for 'limit' or 'search'. With three parameters and no parametric detail in the description, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'List members of a group or channel.' It distinguishes from siblings like list_chats or chat_info by focusing on the participant list itself, though it does not explicitly reference alternative tools.
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 parenthetical 'admin rights may be needed for channels' provides a prerequisite/context, but the description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.