TgPilot

edit_message

Modify the text of an existing Telegram message you sent by specifying the chat, message ID, and replacement content.

Instructions

Edit your own message.

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>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "edit_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses only one trait: that only your own messages can be edited. It says nothing about edit time limits, whether text fully replaces the original, whether edit history is preserved, or what errors occur on unauthorized edits — all critical for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification given three undocumented parameters on a mutation operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a write operation with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should still convey permission constraints, edit limits, and replacement semantics — none of which are present.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so none of the three parameters (chat, message_id, text) are documented in the schema. The description only indirectly implies message_id refers to a message the caller authored; it never explains chat as a target identifier or that text replaces existing content.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Edit') with a specific resource ('message') and adds a scope constraint ('your own'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like delete_messages or send_message, which is what keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus send_message (post a new message) or delete_messages (remove one). The 'your own' qualifier hints that editing is restricted to authored messages, but that is a constraint, not when-to-use routing.

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