Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegram-mcp

telegram-mcp

by dikaglorya
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Edit message

telegram_edit_message

Edit your own Telegram message by chat and message ID, replacing its text with updated content.

Instructions

Edit one of your own messages in a chat by message id.

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>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "telegram_edit_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYes
textYes
messageIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is already known. The description adds the genuinely useful constraint that only your own messages can be edited, but says nothing about edit windows, error behavior, or whether non-text content can be edited.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, thin annotations, and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description leaves too much open: no success/error semantics, no edit-eligibility rules, and no parameter format hints. An agent would need outside knowledge to call it reliably.

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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate. "By message id" clarifies messageId and "in a chat" scopes chat, but the accepted chat identifier formats (id vs @username) and the 4096-character text limit documented in the schema are not surfaced here.

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 and resource ("Edit ... messages") plus a scoping constraint ("one of your own") that separates it from send_message and delete_messages. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the operation is unmistakable.

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 condition distinguishing editing from re-sending or deleting a message, and no mention of alternatives such as telegram_delete_messages or telegram_send_message. The only implied rule is message ownership.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools