Skip to main content
Glama
bobidk91-ops

Telegram MCP Server

by bobidk91-ops

send_reaction

Send emoji reactions to specific Telegram messages using message ID, enabling interactive bot responses and user engagement in channels.

Instructions

Send a reaction to a message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiYesEmoji to send as reaction
message_idYesMessage ID to react to

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for 'send_reaction' tool that calls TelegramBot.setMessageReaction to add the specified emoji reaction to the given message ID in the channel and returns a success message.
    case 'send_reaction': {
      const { message_id, emoji } = args as {
        message_id: number;
        emoji: string;
      };
      
      await bot.setMessageReaction(CHANNEL_ID, message_id, {
        reaction: [{ type: 'emoji', emoji: emoji as any }],
      });
      
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `āœ… Reaction sent successfully!\n\nšŸ“± Channel: ${CHANNEL_ID}\nšŸ“ Message ID: ${message_id}\nšŸ˜€ Emoji: ${emoji}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The input schema for the send_reaction tool defining the required message_id (number) and emoji (string) parameters with descriptions.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        message_id: {
          type: 'number',
          description: 'ID of the message to react to',
        },
        emoji: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Emoji to send as reaction (e.g., šŸ‘, ā¤ļø, šŸ˜‚)',
        },
      },
      required: ['message_id', 'emoji'],
    },
  • src/index.ts:133-151 (registration)
    The tool registration in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema for send_reaction.
    {
      name: 'send_reaction',
      description: 'Send a reaction to a message',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          message_id: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'ID of the message to react to',
          },
          emoji: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Emoji to send as reaction (e.g., šŸ‘, ā¤ļø, šŸ˜‚)',
          },
        },
        required: ['message_id', 'emoji'],
      },
    },
    {
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether reactions are reversible, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings involving message operations, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on behavioral implications, error conditions, or integration with other tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('emoji' and 'message_id'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as emoji format examples or message ID sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('send a reaction') and target resource ('to a message'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'edit_message' which also involve message interactions, missing explicit distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'send_message' and 'edit_message' available, the description lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for sending reactions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bobidk91-ops/telegram-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server