zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

list_bot_users

Retrieve a paginated list of bot subscribers and leads with optional search by name, username, or ID using a given bot ID.

Instructions

Пользователи (подписчики/лиды) бота, постранично (GET /api/bots/{botId}/users). Опц. page (с 0), size (по умолч. 25), query (поиск по имени/username/id). Read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "botId": "<botId>"
    },
    "name": "list_bot_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`size`	No
`botId`	Yes
`query`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, pagination starting at page 0, default size 25, and search across name/username/id. It omits details like return format or error handling, but for a simple list operation this is solid.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then covers endpoint, optional parameters, and read-only nature in a highly efficient way. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: resource, pagination, search, and safety. It lacks return shape and error details, but these are minor for a basic GET list. The endpoint and parameter behavior make it sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains page (starting at 0), size (default 25), and query (search by name/username/id). botId is not explicitly described but is implied by the endpoint path. This meaningfully adds beyond the bare schema.

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 (bot users/subscribers/leads) and indicates a paginated listing operation via the endpoint and 'постранично'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_bots and list_channels by explicitly naming the user resource, though it lacks an imperative verb like 'list'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: it is a read-only paginated list with optional search by page, size, and query. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward list tool.

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