Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegram-business-bridge

telegram-business-bridge

by AndyShaman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

draft_reply

Compose a draft reply for Telegram Business messages. Requires manual confirmation via card, except in auto-chats where it sends instantly.

Instructions

Создать черновик ответа от имени владельца. Владелец подтверждает карточкой; в auto-чатах уходит сразу.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "draft_reply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
chat_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses two behavioral traits: owner confirms with a card, and drafts go immediately in auto-chats. However, it omits other details like permissions or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the output schema exists, the description covers purpose and some behavioral traits but lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. Incomplete for a 2-param tool with 0% param coverage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters (chat_id, text) beyond their names. The behavior description does not compensate for missing parameter details.

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 'Create a draft reply on behalf of the owner', specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_reply by mentioning owner confirmation and auto-chat behavior.

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 implies usage context (owner confirmation, auto-chat immediate sending) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like send_reply. Provides context but no clear when-not or alternative names.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools