Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
secure-telegram-mcp

secure-telegram-mcp

by antonorlov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

React to a message

send_reaction

Set a single-emoji reaction on an allowed Telegram message while enforcing chat scope, anti-ban quotas, and optional human confirmation; invalid targets are rejected.

Instructions

Set a single-emoji reaction on one in-scope message. The chat must be inside this endpoint’s allow-list; out-of-scope targets are rejected. Subject to the per-endpoint anti-ban quota and, when enabled, human confirmation. The emoji must be a single emoji; an emoji Telegram does not allow for the chat is rejected.

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": {
      "peer": "<peer>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "send_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
peerYesChat reference: { kind:'id', value:'<decimal id>' } | { kind:'username', value:'@name' } | { kind:'me' }.
emojiYesA single emoji to react with (one grapheme cluster).
messageIdYesA positive per-chat message id.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiYesThe single emoji that was set (echoed).
chat_idYesChat the reaction was sent to.
message_idYesId of the message reacted to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: an allow-list scope restriction, a per-endpoint anti-ban quota, and an optional human-confirmation gate, plus a rejection path for disallowed emoji. It stops short of describing what is returned or what happens if a reaction already exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action stated first and constraints following in order of importance. No repetition of the title or schema text and no wasted clauses.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a three-required-parameter mutation with a fully described schema, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description covers action, scope restriction, throttling, confirmation, and the main rejection case. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by stating that exactly one emoji is allowed and that an emoji Telegram disallows for that chat is rejected, which is behavioral meaning not encoded in the schema. The 'one in-scope message' phrasing also implicitly reinforces messageId semantics, though it adds no syntax detail beyond the schema's peer/messageId documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Set a single-emoji reaction') and scopes it to 'one in-scope message'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like send_message, edit_message, and delete_message without needing to open any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It supplies real preconditions for use: the chat must be in the endpoint's allow-list, out-of-scope targets are rejected, the anti-ban quota applies, and human confirmation may gate the call. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it below a 5.

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

This server cannot be deployed

Other Tools