Fetches read-only Telegram Ads performance data for exact date ranges, returning 5-minute or daily statistics for campaign spend and analytics reporting.
Read Telegram Ads through the official promoteapi.telegram.org API. This is read-only and supports exact date-bounded 5-minute or daily stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| max_ads | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| timeout_ms | No | ||
| stats_period | No | ||
| include_stats | No |
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 does the important work of declaring the tool read-only and naming the upstream API, which is genuinely useful safety context. It omits other behavioral traits an agent needs, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior implied by max_ads (max 100), and what happens when all optional parameters are omitted.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the read-only guarantee. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the API hostname could arguably be trimmed in favor of parameter guidance.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the required-ish account_id, what include_stats toggles, or the meaning of max_ads/timeout_ms, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call from description plus schema alone.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only covers two concepts indirectly: date bounding (from/to) and stats_period. It says nothing about account_id, max_ads, timeout_ms, or include_stats, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.
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 and resource: reading Telegram Ads stats through the official promoteapi.telegram.org API, with 5-minute or daily granularity. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named siblings ads_telegram_ads_report and ads_telegram_ads_sync, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 guidance on when to pick this over ads_telegram_ads_report, ads_telegram_ads_sync, or ads_telegram_accounts_report. The only hint at usage is the mention of 'exact date-bounded' stats and the 5min/day periods, but nothing states prerequisites, defaults, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.