Retrieve the total post-views history for a Telegram channel over time, with options to group by day, hour, week, or month and specify a date range.
Total post-views 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a history over time, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what aggregation or granularity is used, any rate limits, or what the response structure looks like. For a data retrieval tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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 redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It could be more informative, but for conciseness alone it is efficient.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain how time range works, what 'post-views history' means in terms of aggregation, whether data is returned as a series, or any constraints on date ranges. An agent would need to inspect the schema to infer behavior, but the schema only describes parameter types, not expected output or edge cases.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.
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 verb (get) and resource (channel post-views history over time). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_channel_stats or get_channel_avg_reach, which might also return view-related 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.