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

telegram-business-bridge

by AndyShaman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_drafts

List telegram drafts with optional chat ID filter and limit. View statuses including pending, awaiting approval, approved, sending, sent, failed, rejected, or superseded.

Instructions

Список черновиков (по умолчанию последние 20, можно отфильтровать по chat_id). Статусы: pending — только создан, awaiting — карточка отправлена владельцу, ждёт подтверждения, approved/sending — подтверждён и отправляется, sent — отправлен, failed — ошибка отправки, rejected — владелец отклонил, superseded — заменён новым черновиком в том же чате.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_drafts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
chat_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains default behavior, filtering, and lists all possible draft statuses, which gives agents good context about returned data.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with two clear parts: the main function and a list of statuses. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (filtering, default, statuses) and is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains both parameters: limit with a default of 20 and chat_id for filtering, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists drafts with a default limit and filter option. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing drafts but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools.

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