Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegram-bot-mcp

telegram-bot-mcp

by FantomaSkaRus1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

create_chat_invite_link

Generate a Telegram chat invite link with customizable settings like name, expiration, member limit, and join request approval. Optionally target a default log group.

Instructions

Create a new invite link for a chat. If chat_id is omitted, targets the default log group.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_chat_invite_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoInvite link name (up to 32 chars)
chat_idNoChat ID or @channel_username. Optional — defaults to log group
expire_dateNoUnix timestamp when the link expires
member_limitNoMax users who can join (1-99999)
creates_join_requestNoRequire join request approval

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.0.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the default target behavior but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or post-creation state. For a creation tool, it is moderately 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?

Two brief sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks return type info and constraints (e.g., only works for groups/channels).

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the chat_id default.

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?

The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (invite link) with context (for a chat, with default log group target). It differentiates from sibling tools like edit_chat_invite_link by focusing on creation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_chat_subscription_invite_link or export_chat_invite_link. The default behavior is noted but no when-not-to-use context.

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