Skip to main content
Glama
electrified-cortex

Telegram Bridge MCP

by electrified-cortex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to Telegram Bridge MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • mcp-telegram

      Prgebish
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that connects AI assistants to your real Telegram account via User API (MTProto). Features default-deny ACL with per-chat permissions, message search, file sending, forwarding, media downloads, and rate limiting.
      3
      MIT

    • MCP AgentChat

      Lynricsy
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server enabling AI agents to interact with users via Telegram, supporting message and image sending, inline quick replies, and waiting for user responses.
      1 npm
      MIT

    • tgbot-mcp

      TGLEEEE
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A trusted, open-source MCP server for Telegram that enables LLMs to send messages, structured notifications with buttons, and wait for user replies using only bot token authentication.
      4
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.8/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have distinct purposes: action dispatches commands, dequeue consumes updates, help provides documentation, send transmits messages. However, send overloads multiple sending modes (notify, send_file, etc.) which could cause confusion.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Tool names are inconsistent: two verbs (dequeue, send), one noun (action), and one ambiguous (help). No consistent pattern like verb_noun or camelCase.

    Tool Count3/5

    Four tools is minimal but acceptable for a simple bridge. The scope seems intentionally limited, but more tools might be expected for a full-featured bridge.

    Completeness3/5

    Core send and receive operations are covered via send and dequeue. Session management is handled through action. However, missing editing, deleting, or searching messages leaves notable gaps.

    Maintenance

    ActivityActive
    ResponsivenessSyncing

    Resources