Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Telegram MCP Server

Telegram MCP Server

by lyduchuy1204
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

send_message

Sends a text message as the logged-in user to a specified Telegram chat, optionally as a reply to a specific message.

Instructions

Send a text message as the logged-in user.

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chatYes
textYes
reply_toNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that the message is sent as the logged-in user, which clarifies the authorization/identity context. It does not explain delivery side effects, whether reply_to must reference an existing message, or rate/error behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity is not matched by parameter detail elsewhere.

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 three-parameter messaging mutation with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent must infer chat identifier format, reply_to semantics, and side-effect expectations, so it is not complete enough to call confidently without trial.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters: 'chat' (ID vs name), 'text' (format or limits), or 'reply_to' (what integer it references). 'text message' only loosely maps to the 'text' parameter and leaves the key target/reply semantics undocumented.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('a text message') and scopes it to the logged-in user, making the action immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby read/list/delete siblings, but the send operation is naturally distinct.

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?

It gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over read_messages or other chat tools, and no prerequisites beyond the sender identity. The implied use case is obvious but not stated.

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