Update a Telegram message's inline keyboard or reply markup by specifying chat and message IDs, letting you change buttons without resending the message.
Edit the inline keyboard of a message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | No | Chat ID or @username | |
| message_id | No | Message ID | |
| reply_markup | No | InlineKeyboardMarkup, ReplyKeyboardMarkup, ReplyKeyboardRemove, or ForceReply | |
| inline_message_id | No | ||
| business_connection_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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not disclose that sending an empty reply_markup removes the keyboard, does not mention the chat_id/message_id versus inline_message_id addressing modes, and does not describe the result of the edit.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. The brevity is a virtue for scanning but tips into under-specification, which is penalized in the other dimensions rather than here.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 60% schema coverage needs the description to explain addressing modes, the markup-type breadth, and keyboard removal. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call it correctly from the definition alone.
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 60%, and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all. Key semantics are left undocumented in both places, notably that reply_markup can be omitted/empty to strip the keyboard and that business_connection_id and inline_message_id are alternative addressing paths.
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 ("Edit") and resource ("inline keyboard of a message"), which is clear at a glance, but it narrows the scope to inline keyboards while the schema's reply_markup accepts InlineKeyboardMarkup, ReplyKeyboardMarkup, ReplyKeyboardRemove, and ForceReply. It also gives no hint of how it differs from the close sibling edit_ephemeral_message_reply_markup.
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, no prerequisite information, and no mention of alternatives such as edit_message_text or edit_message_media when the whole message content is changing. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.