Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegram-mcp

telegram-mcp

by dikaglorya
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List scheduled messages

telegram_scheduled_messages
Read-only

List messages already queued for future delivery in a Telegram chat and review their planned send times.

Instructions

List the messages queued to be sent later in a chat, with their planned send time. Scheduling is done by the client; this reads back what is already queued.

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>"
    },
    "name": "telegram_scheduled_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYes
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying that scheduling happens client-side and this tool only reads back what is queued, preventing the agent from assuming it can schedule. It stops short of describing pagination or the return shape.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the key behavioral clarification. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned and the read-only nature. However, with 0% schema coverage the parameters remain undocumented, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description only implicitly references the required 'chat' via 'in a chat' and never explains its accepted format (id, username, etc.), and 'limit' is not mentioned at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (messages queued to be sent later), scoped to a chat and including the planned send time. The purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool covers scheduled messages, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect queued messages, but there is no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g., send_message for actually queuing). The second sentence clarifies behavior rather than selection guidance.

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