get_chatRetrieve details for a single Telegram chat by @username, numeric ID, or 'me' to see its name, kind, username, member count, and description when available.
Details of a single chat: name, kind, username, member count and description where the chat has them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| peer | Yes | A @username, numeric id, or 'me'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-field inventory ('where the chat has them', signaling optional fields), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unresolvable peer or any auth requirements.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Slightly under-informative rather than over-verbose, which is fine for conciseness.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and noting they are conditional. Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, this is close to complete for a simple single-record fetch; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.
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% and the single 'peer' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('A @username, numeric id, or 'me''). The description adds no further syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?
States a specific resource (a single chat) and enumerates the fields returned (name, kind, username, member count, description), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_chats or resolve, but 'a single chat' implies a targeted lookup rather than a listing.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several plausible siblings (list_chats for enumeration, resolve for turning an identifier into a chat, history for messages). The agent must infer the selection criteria on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.