Compare multiple Telegram channels side-by-side on subscriber count, average reach, and engagement rate (ERR) using TGstat data.
Compare several channels side by side on subscribers, average reach and ERR (one channels/stat lookup per channel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_ids | Yes | 2–10 channel @usernames / IDs to compare |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / channel_ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"Массив ID/username каналов для сравнения"New value: +"2–10 channel @usernames / IDs to compare"Input schema / properties / channel_ids / items / descriptionAdded value: +"Channel @username, t.me link, or TGStat channel ID"Input schema / properties / channel_ids / items / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / channel_ids / maxItemsAdded value: +10Input schema / properties / channel_ids / minItemsAdded value: +2v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, though 'compare' implies a non-mutating action. The lack of explicit safety disclosure leaves room for ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the purpose and a performance note without redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description is sufficient for understanding the tool's function, even without an output schema. It states the metrics compared and the per-call efficiency. Minor gaps like output format are not critical given the simplicity of the comparison.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (channel_ids) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as ordering or deduplication behavior, but no additional detail is necessary.
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?
The description clearly states the action (compare), the resource (channels), and the specific metrics (subscribers, average reach, ERR). It distinguishes itself from single-channel lookups by emphasizing side-by-side comparison.
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?
The description implies usage for comparing multiple channels on key metrics, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_channel_stats or get_channel. The 'one channels/stat lookup per channel' hint suggests efficiency but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.