telegram_message_linkGenerate t.me links for a Telegram message or an entire chat. Handles public and private chats, producing the /c/ form when no username is available.
Build the t.me link for one message, or for a whole chat when messageId is omitted. Works for public and private chats — a private chat yields the /c/ form, which needs no username.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| messageId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful format behavior: private chats yield the /c/ form and need no username.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the optional-parameter rule; every clause carries useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, it explains the output link form and the messageId omission behavior. It could state the return type more explicitly, but the definition is broadly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains messageId's optionality and its effect on scope, and clarifies public/private chat behavior. It still leaves the chat parameter's accepted string format implicit, so some semantic detail is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('t.me link') and scopes it to one message or a whole chat, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings that fetch messages or export invite links.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains the key conditional: include messageId for one message, omit it for a chat-wide link. It does not name a sibling alternative or when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.