Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Telegram MCP

Telegram MCP

by Anonymouse8882
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

start_bot

Send /start to a Telegram bot with an optional start parameter and wait for its first reply. Control wait time to capture the response.

Instructions

给一个 bot 发 /start（可带启动参数），并等它的第一条回复。

Args: bot: bot 的 @username 或 ID。 start_param: deep link 里的启动参数（t.me/xxx?start=PARAM 的 PARAM）。 wait_seconds: 等回复多少秒，0 表示不等。

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": "start_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
botYes
start_paramNo
wait_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sending /start and waiting for reply, but lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or what happens if bot doesn't reply. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Description is very concise with a clear header and bullet-like args. No unnecessary information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers purpose and args adequately. However, it does not mention the return value (though output schema exists). Still, it is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter: bot as @username or ID, start_param as deep link parameter, wait_seconds as seconds to wait. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it sends /start to a bot and waits for its first reply, using specific verb 'send /start' and resource 'bot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or wait_for_message.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to initialize a bot interaction via /start. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., if bot already started).

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