telegram-bot-mcp

edit_chat_invite_link

Modify an existing chat invite link to update its name, expiration, member limit, or join request requirement.

Instructions

Edit an existing invite link for a chat. If chat_id is omitted, targets the default log group.

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": {
      "invite_link": "<invite_link>"
    },
    "name": "edit_chat_invite_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New invite link name
`chat_id`	No	Chat ID or @channel_username. Optional — defaults to log group
`expire_date`	No	Unix timestamp when the link expires
`invite_link`	Yes	The invite link to edit
`member_limit`	No	Max users who can join (1-99999)
`creates_join_request`	No	Require join request approval

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.3Mar 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the default chat behavior and omits side effects, error states, or necessary permissions.

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?

A single, well-built sentence that delivers the core action and a key default behavior upfront. No extraneous words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about success responses, errors, or prerequisite conditions. It feels under-specified.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds only a default for chat_id, which is already implied by the schema's optionality. Minimal additional value.

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 tool edits an existing invite link and clarifies the default chat behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or revoke invite links.

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?

The description implies usage (when you need to modify an invite link) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like revoking and recreating.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server