bot_get_chatFetch a Bale chat's type, title, username, and description using its numeric ID or @channel username to identify and inspect the conversation.
Get a chat's type, title or name, username and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat id (number, e.g. 123456789) or public '@channel' username. See bot_list_chats. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / chat_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Chat id (number from bot_get_new_messages or bot_list_chats, e.g. 123456789) or a public channel/group username like '@mychannel'."New value: +"Chat id (number, e.g. 123456789) or public '@channel' username. See bot_list_chats."Input schema / properties / chat_id / titleRemoved value: -"Chat Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"bot_get_chatArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "bot_get_chatDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds what data is fetched but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. invalid chat_id), permissions, or rate limits, so it modestly clears the lowered bar without enriching it.
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 names the resource and its return fields with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, partially compensating for the missing return schema. The absence of any error/not-found behavior keeps it short of fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the single chat_id parameter is documented in the schema with accepted forms (numeric id or '@channel' username). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (chat) and enumerates the fields it returns (type, title/name, username, description). It is clearly distinct from list-oriented siblings like bot_list_chats, but the description never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance in the description. The only usage hint ('See bot_list_chats' for id form) lives in the input schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.