Get posts from other channels that forwarded the specified channel's content. Use channel_id and optional start/end dates to filter results.
Posts from other channels that forwarded this channel's content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (max 50) | |
| 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?
With no annotations and no description of side effects, the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it paginates, orders results, or enforces rate limits. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond the returned data shape implied by the description.
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 core purpose. No filler or redundant wording is present, and the key qualifier 'from other channels' is front-loaded.
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 lacks essential context for an agent: it does not explain what fields are returned, whether results are paginated, how date ranges interact with the query, or any default behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not.
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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters, including channel_id format, date-range format, and limit bounds. The main description adds no extra parameter context, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 identifies the resource (posts forwarded from other channels) and the scope (specific channel), making it distinct from the sibling get_channel_mentions. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the intent is unmistakable.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_channel_mentions or search_posts. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the terse description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.