Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegram-mcp

telegram-mcp

by jgalea
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

schedule_message

Send a Telegram message at a specified future time by providing the chat, text, and ISO datetime. Use for reminders and scheduled announcements.

Instructions

Send a message at a future time

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_id": "<chat_id>",
      "text": "<text>",
      "schedule_date": "<schedule_date>"
    },
    "name": "schedule_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
chat_idYes
reply_toNo
schedule_dateYesISO datetime

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only states the deferred-send behavior. It does not disclose cancellation options, side effects, validation of schedule_date, timezone handling, or what a successful schedule operation returns.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and scheduling qualifier. It is appropriately compact for such a high-level purpose statement.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial scheduling semantics such as past-date handling, reply_to behavior, and post-call expectations, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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 coverage is only 25%; only schedule_date has a description ('ISO datetime'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and reply_to is entirely unexplained for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Send a message') with a clear qualifier ('at a future time'), which distinguishes it from sibling send_message. The resource and scheduling intent are immediately clear.

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 guidance on when to use schedule_message versus alternatives like send_message or get_scheduled_messages. The description implies future delivery but never explicitly routes the agent between immediate and scheduled sending.

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