Claudegram

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_pm_users

Read-onlyIdempotent

List personal Telegram chats with real users, excluding bots. Filter by archive, pinned, or unread status to find specific conversations.

Instructions

Личные чаты с юзерами (без ботов).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_pm_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`compact`	No
`archived`	No	both
`is_pinned`	No	any
`only_unread`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the scoping detail that bots are excluded, which is useful. However, it does not mention default behaviors, pagination, or how filters like archived/pinned apply. Given strong annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short phrase with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, omitting important details about filters and behavior. This is not true conciseness but rather brevity at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'compact' does, how archived/is_pinned/only_unread filters work, or the significance of the default limit. The annotations and output schema fill some gaps, but the description should provide more orientation for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Parameter names like 'limit', 'compact', 'archived' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: private chats with users (excluding bots). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_channels, list_groups, and list_bots. The verb is implied but made clear by the tool name 'list_pm_users'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The phrase 'without bots' hints at when to use this tool over list_bots or list_chats, but there are no instructions on when to prefer alternatives or any exclusions. The intended use is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server