Retrieve key Telegram channel statistics including average post reach, engagement rate, daily reach, and citation index.
Get a channel's statistics: average post reach, ERR%, daily reach, citation index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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: +1v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by listing retrieved statistics, but does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a simple get, this is adequate but minimal; no contradictions or misleading claims.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the returned metrics. No wasted words, and the most important information is presented first.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape. It lists the four statistics, which gives a reasonable idea, but omits types, units, or structure (e.g., object vs. list). Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not thorough; an agent might need to infer details like ERR% being a percentage.
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 100% for the only parameter (channel_id), so the schema fully documents its meaning. The description adds no extra parameter details, which is acceptable at the high-coverage baseline. No additional semantics are needed beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a channel's statistics') and enumerates the exact metrics (average post reach, ERR%, daily reach, citation index). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_channel_avg_reach or get_channel_err, which focus on individual metrics.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the more granular siblings (get_channel_avg_reach, get_channel_err, get_channel_views). It doesn't state whether this is a summary/aggregate tool or when to prefer a specific metric. The agent must infer usage from the listed fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.