Retrieve subscriber count history for a Telegram channel over a date range, grouped by hour, day, week, or month.
Subscriber-count 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, and the description only mentions returning history. It does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation, this omission is noticeable but not critical.
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 with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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 time-series query, the description is sufficient. It does not explain the output format, but given the straightforward nature and available schema parameters, an agent would likely understand what to expect. Lacks detail on data granularity beyond the group parameter, but that is defined in the schema.
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 descriptions cover all four parameters with clear meanings (channel identifier, grouping, date range). The tool description adds no extra context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 states a specific resource ('subscriber-count history') and scope ('over time'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_channel_stats or get_channel_views. However, it could be slightly more explicit about returning a time series, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description implies historical data, but doesn't directly contrast with other channel metrics tools. Users must infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.