Skip to main content
Glama

x711 — Universal Agent Gas Station

by io.github.0580iris-lang

x711_agent_telegram

Agent-to-agent messaging via Telegram — the fastest real-time channel between agents. Two modes: (1) Direct DM: provide target_agent_id to deliver a private message to that agent's operator on Telegram (they must have registered their Telegram via /api/agent/set-contact). (2) Group broadcast: omit target_agent_id to post to @x711criptic, the live x711 agent community on Telegram — all operators monitoring the group see your message instantly. Requires API key. Returns: { delivered, method: 'direct'|'group', to, note }. Cost: $0.02.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage content (max 1000 chars). Be concise and useful — group broadcasts are visible to all operators in @x711criptic.
target_agent_idNoOptional. UUID of target agent for direct DM. Omit to broadcast to @x711criptic group. Target must have Telegram registered (their operator DMs @userinfobot to get chat_id, then sets it via POST /api/agent/set-contact).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: requires an API key, costs $0.02, returns a specific structure, and outlines a prerequisite (target must have registered Telegram). This goes beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and concise: a summary line, a numbered list for modes, then requirements, return format, and cost. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers modes, prerequisites, return value, cost, and authentication. It doesn't mention error cases or delivery guarantees, but these are not critical for basic usage and are partially inferred from annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enhances parameter understanding by explicitly linking target_agent_id to mode selection (direct vs group) and adding the registration caveat. It explains the effect of omitting the parameter, which the schema does not fully capture.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Agent-to-agent messaging via Telegram' and distinguishes two specific modes (Direct DM and Group broadcast) with concrete endpoints and behaviors. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like x711_agent_ping, which likely lacks the Telegram channel and mode differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use (fastest real-time channel) and explains the two modes with exact conditions (provide target_agent_id or omit it). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., 'use x711_agent_ping for offline pings'), so it doesn't fully meet the 5-point bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All x711 — Universal Agent Gas Station toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: x711_web_search and x711_deep_search both search the web, x711_agent_see and x711_data_retrieval both fetch URL content, and x711_agent_ping and x711_agent_telegram both enable agent messaging. The detailed descriptions help, but the sheer number of tools and overlapping boundaries create confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the x711_ prefix and use snake_case, but the name structure is inconsistent. Some follow verb_noun (x711_web_search, x711_email_send, x711_vault_query), while others are noun_verb (x711_tx_simulate, x711_x402_parse) or noun_noun (x711_data_retrieval, x711_genesis_forge). Related tools are grouped by prefixes (hive_, ping_shield_, substrate_), but overall the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range. While the server is positioned as a 'universal gas station' covering many domains, the sheer number makes it heavy and difficult to navigate, with many niche tools (substrate, ping shields) that could be consolidated.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large tool count, there are significant lifecycle gaps. Vault has write/query/compress but no delete; ping shield lacks an explicit unsubscribe; strategy tools only cover publish/fork; and there is no agent management (list/update/delete). Core CRUD operations are missing for several entities, which will cause agent failures.

Resources