Retrieve the engagement rate by reach (ERR) history for a Telegram channel over a specified time period.
ERR (engagement rate by reach) history of a channel over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Grouping period | day |
| end_date | No | Range end (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel @username / t.me link / TGStat ID | |
| start_date | No | Range start (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. The name 'get_channel_err' and the verb 'history' imply a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified or that it is safe. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough to understand what data is returned. It does not describe the output format, but that is not strictly required here. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent.
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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (channel_id, group, start_date, end_date). The description adds no additional meaning beyond these fields, but the schema itself is sufficiently descriptive. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves ERR (engagement rate by reach) history for a channel over time. It identifies the specific metric and scope, though it could be slightly more explicit about the data source or calculation.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_channel_stats or get_channel_avg_reach. There is no guidance on conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.