TgPilot

forward_messages

Forward specified Telegram messages from one chat to another by ID, so agents can relay content between conversations.

Instructions

Forward one or more messages to another chat.

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": {
      "from_chat": "<from_chat>",
      "message_ids": "<message_ids>",
      "to_chat": "<to_chat>"
    },
    "name": "forward_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_chat`	Yes
`from_chat`	Yes
`message_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether the original sender attribution is preserved, whether the source messages are modified, or any rate limits for bulk forwarding. Only the mutation nature is implied by the verb.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. Its brevity is achieved by omission rather than by efficient coverage, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explained, but for a 3-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition leaves key call-shaping details unaddressed. An agent has to guess at identifier formats and eligibility rules.

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 all three parameters (from_chat, message_ids, to_chat) are undocumented in the schema. The description only implies that message_ids accepts multiple values and that to_chat is a chat target; it adds no format, identifier-type, or cross-chat constraints such as whether from_chat and to_chat may be equal.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Forward ... messages') plus the destination ('to another chat'), which is enough to separate it from send_message or edit_message. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of 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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when forwarding is preferable to re-sending content with send_message, nor any prerequisite such as needing membership in the destination chat. The only implied context is that the messages already exist.

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