zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

list_channels

Retrieve a list of channels and groups connected to a bot, including chatId, title, type, bot status, and date. The chatId serves as the numeric identifier for SUBSCRIBED conditions.

Instructions

Список каналов/групп, подключённых к боту (chatId, title, type, статус бота, дата). chatId — числовой id для условия SUBSCRIBED («Подписан на канал»).

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_channels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`botId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It adds useful context by listing output fields and clarifying the chatId semantics for the SUBSCRIBED condition. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any permissions, pagination, or rate limits. For a list operation, the read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and adds one clarifying note about chatId. Every word earns its place.

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?

The output fields are enumerated, but the required input parameter botId is entirely undocumented. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of information, and the missing parameter guidance is a significant gap for a tool with only one input.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema requires botId (string) but provides no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention botId at all, leaving the sole parameter completely unexplained. The agent receives no guidance on what value to pass.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool lists channels/groups connected to a bot, a specific resource and verb. It also enumerates output fields (chatId, title, type, status, date), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bots or list_bot_users.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description only defines what the tool returns; it provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_bots or list_links. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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