Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kotlogramme

kotlogramme

by J0s3f
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Pinned message

telegram_get_pinned_message
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the pinned message from a Telegram chat and return a clear result when none is pinned, helping you verify announcements or chat context.

Instructions

Returns the message pinned in a chat, or says there is none.

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": {
      "chat": "<chat>"
    },
    "name": "telegram_get_pinned_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYesThe chat: 'me' for Saved Messages, an @username, or a numeric chat id as listed by telegram_list_chats. Invite links are not accepted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact – the empty case is reported as “none” rather than failing – but says nothing about permissions (e.g. needing to be a member) or what the returned message contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded. “Or says there is none” is slightly informal, and the sentence could name the actual return shape, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It is thin on the empty-case shape (does it return a message object, null, or a text notice?) and on access requirements, which matters for an open-world Telegram call.

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% and the chat parameter's accepted formats ('me', @username, numeric id, no invite links) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (“Returns the message pinned in a chat”), which unambiguously identifies the operation. No sibling in the listed set deals with pinned messages, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 only implied by the description – an agent can infer it retrieves a chat's pinned message, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or pointer to alternatives (e.g. read_history or search_messages) if nothing is pinned.

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