Find where a channel is mentioned or forwarded by other channels and chats.
Find where a channel is mentioned or forwarded by other channels and chats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (max 50) | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel @username, t.me link, or TGStat channel ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / channel_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID или username канала"New value: +"Channel @username, t.me link, or TGStat channel ID"Input schema / properties / channel_id / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / defaultAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Максимум результатов (по умолчанию 50)"New value: +"Max results (max 50)"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +50Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data the response contains, or any side effects or limitations. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and fails to meet it.
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 with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but omits information about the response format or any edge cases. It is adequate but not enriched with contextual details that would help an agent fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, clearly explaining channel_id and limit. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'where a channel is mentioned or forwarded by other channels and chats,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_forwards. However, 'where' is somewhat vague—it could be more explicit about whether it returns a list of channels/chats or something else.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisite conditions, typical use cases, or contrast with sibling tools like search_channels or get_channel_forwards, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.