Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Telegram MCP

Telegram MCP

by Anonymouse8882
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_message_link

Retrieve a t.me link for a specific message by providing chat identifier and message ID. Returns null for private chats without public links.

Instructions

生成一条消息的 t.me 链接（私聊没有公开链接，link 会是 null）。

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": "<chat>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_message_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYes
topic_idNo
message_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that private chats yield null, a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose and usage). Could be improved with a clearer format.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description still misses parameter documentation and does not cover the return structure or potential errors. Incomplete for reliable agent use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter (chat, topic_id, message_id). The agent must infer from names, which is insufficient.

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 generates a t.me link for a message, with a specific note about null for private chats. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like resolve_message_link but the action is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., resolve_message_link). The note about private chat returning null is a minor usage hint but insufficient for decision-making.

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