TgPilot

pin_message

Pins or unpins a specified Telegram message in a chat, enabling agents to manage pinned content by chat and message ID.

Instructions

Pin or unpin a 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>"
    },
    "name": "pin_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes
`unpin`	No
`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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the bidirectional nature (pin vs. unpin); it says nothing about required permissions, whether pinning replaces an existing pin, visibility to other participants, or side effects. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy. It is front-loaded and readable, though it leaves nothing to structure.

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 no explanation. However, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain permissions, identifier formats, and toggle 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 the description should compensate, but it only loosely maps to the 'unpin' boolean. It does not explain the format of 'chat' (ID vs. username vs. link), what 'message_id' refers to within that chat, or that unpin defaults to false.

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 pair and resource: "Pin or unpin a message." An agent immediately knows this mutates a message's pinned state. It does not differentiate from siblings (none of which pin), so it falls 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., admin/owner rights typically needed to pin in a chat), and no mention of alternatives or when pinning is inappropriate. The agent must infer everything about applicability.

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