Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegram-mcp

telegram-mcp

by dikaglorya
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

My profile

telegram_me
Read-only

Retrieve the authorized Telegram account's profile details—ID, names, username, phone number, and premium status.

Instructions

Full profile of the authorized account (id, names, username, phone, premium).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "telegram_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the field list (id, names, username, phone, premium), which is useful output context, but says nothing about auth prerequisites or failure behavior for an unauthenticated session.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the subject ('Full profile of the authorized account') and a compact parenthetical of return fields. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and with no parameters there is no invocation ambiguity. Only the omission of auth context keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the parenthetical field list is a small bonus rather than parameter information.

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 concrete resource and scope: the full profile of the authorized account, with the returned fields enumerated. It implicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_full_user (other users) via 'authorized account' and from telegram_update_profile via the read-only framing, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent has to infer that this is for the caller's own profile versus telegram_full_user for another user, or telegram_status for connection state; no alternative is mentioned.

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