TgPilot

react

Adds an emoji response to a Telegram message, or removes it when the emoji field is empty.

Instructions

Put an emoji reaction on a message (empty emoji removes it).

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": "react"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`chat`	Yes
`emoji`	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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavior beyond the schema: an empty emoji removes the reaction, which signals a mutating/removal operation. It says nothing about permissions, whether re-reacting replaces or stacks, or behavior on invalid message ids.

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 a tight parenthetical for the removal case — zero filler. It is on the terse side, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Start here: the tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The gaps are the undocumented required parameters and unstated preconditions for a mutation with no annotations, which keeps it short of complete.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies the emoji parameter's empty-string semantics, but the two required parameters, chat and message_id, are left entirely unexplained (no indication whether chat is an id, name, or link).

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: 'Put an emoji reaction on a message'. That is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like send_message or pin_message, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 — an agent can infer this is the tool for reactions rather than sending text, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. must the message exist in the given chat).

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