Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Telegram MCP

Telegram MCP

by Anonymouse8882
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

send_location

Send a geographic location to a Telegram chat, optionally as a venue card with title and address.

Instructions

发送一个地理位置；给了 title 就作为"地点"卡片发送。

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>",
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "send_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYes
titleNo
addressNo
latitudeYes
reply_toNo
longitudeYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only adds that providing a title sends it as a 'place' card, but omits details on permissions, side effects, or response behavior. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacking structure. It conveys the core purpose without waste but could benefit from breaking down the conditional behavior more clearly.

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 six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema not described, the description is too minimal. It does not address the return value or effects of the address parameter, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description only hints at the title parameter's effect. It adds no meaning for the other five parameters (chat, address, latitude, longitude, reply_to), leaving the agent without necessary context to use them correctly.

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 it sends a geographic location and mentions conditional behavior with title, which is specific and resource-oriented. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like send_contact or send_file, so it lacks strong distinction.

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 is provided. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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