TgPilot

send_file

Send a local file, photo, video, or voice note to a Telegram chat with an optional caption or voice-note conversion so agents can deliver media.

Instructions

Send a local file, photo, video or voice note.

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "send_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`caption`	No
`as_voice`	No

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 does little: it never says the operation is an irreversible outbound message, what permissions or chat-type restrictions apply, whether the file is uploaded or referenced by path, or what happens on path failure. The only added context is the enumerated media kinds.

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 that wastes no words. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter mutation tool, but nothing in it is padding or repetition.

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 with zero annotation coverage and zero schema parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without chat addressing format, media constraints, or side-effect disclosure. For an outbound-send tool with four undocumented parameters, this is under-specified.

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% across four parameters, and the description only obliquely gestures at one of them via the phrase "voice note" (as_voice). It says nothing about what "chat" accepts (ID, username, or dialog reference) or how caption interacts with media types.

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?

Specific verb ("Send") plus concrete resource types (local file, photo, video, voice note), which distinguishes it functionally from the sibling send_message. It stops short of naming send_message as the text-only alternative, so the boundary is inferable 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer from the sibling list that send_message handles plain text while this handles media. The word "local" is the only implicit prerequisite, hinting the path must be on the server filesystem rather than a URL, but this is never stated.

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