telegram-mcp

by jgalea

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

send_location

Send latitude and longitude coordinates to a Telegram chat to share a specific place using its chat ID.

Instructions

Send a location

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>",
      "lat": "<lat>",
      "lon": "<lon>"
    },
    "name": "send_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lat`	Yes
`lon`	Yes
`chat_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but it reveals only that a location is sent. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether anything is irreversibly created, or what response the caller can expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a single phrase that restates the tool name. It does not earn its place because it adds no useful substance.

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?

Even for a three-parameter send operation, the description is too thin: it fails to state whether location is sent to a chat, how coordinates are ordered, or what happens on success. The schema gives parameter names, but the description supplies the missing operational context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the three parameters. It does not, offering no information about chat_id, lat, lon, coordinate order, units, or how the location is interpreted.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Send a location' is effectively a rewording of the tool name 'send_location' and adds no new information beyond it. It is not misleading, but it restates the name/title rather than explaining the resource or scope.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as send_message, send_file, or send_voice. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide when this is the right tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.