Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Telegram MCP

Telegram MCP

by Anonymouse8882
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_bot_commands

Retrieve a Telegram bot's public slash commands and description, showing the menu triggered by typing '/' in chat.

Instructions

获取一个 bot 公开的 / 指令菜单和简介（对应聊天框里 / 触发的下拉）。

Args: bot: bot 的 @username 或用户 ID。

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": {
      "bot": "<bot>"
    },
    "name": "get_bot_commands"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the function without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error responses. It is too brief.

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?

Description is short and to the point (two sentences for purpose, one line for arg). No redundant information. Could integrate arg into main description but still concise.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param) and presence of output schema, description is adequate but omits details about return structure or potential errors. Slightly below complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter 'bot' is explained as '@username' or user ID, which adds a bit beyond the schema that only shows 'string or integer'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (like format or examples) would be helpful. Baseline 3 for minimal useful explanation.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a bot's public command menu and introduction ("获取一个 bot 公开的 / 指令菜单和简介"). Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like start_bot or inline_query by focusing on command listing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions (e.g., when the bot has no commands).

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