Copies multiple Telegram messages from one chat to another in one request, with options for notifications, captions, content protection, and message threads.
Copy multiple messages at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat ID or @username | |
| message_ids | Yes | ||
| from_chat_id | Yes | ||
| remove_caption | No | ||
| protect_content | No | ||
| message_thread_id | No | ||
| disable_notification | No | ||
| direct_messages_topic_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention that messages are duplicated into another chat without a forward header, no batch-size or rate limits, and no note on how caption/content protection flags affect the copy.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency given the tool's eight parameters and mutation semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A mutation tool with three required parameters, eight total, and almost no schema documentation needs far more from the description; with no output schema either, the agent has no idea what the call returns or how partial failures across message_ids are handled.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13% across 8 parameters, so the description should compensate and does not. The phrase 'multiple messages' weakly hints at the message_ids array, but chat_id, from_chat_id, message_thread_id, disable_notification, protect_content, remove_caption, and direct_messages_topic_id carry no meaning from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: copying multiple messages, which implicitly contrasts with the single-message sibling copy_message. However, it never names copy_message or forward_messages, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing explains when to pick this over copy_message, forward_messages, or forward_message, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing access to both chats) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.