Telegram MCP Server

set_profile_photo

Upload a new Telegram profile photo from a local JPG/JPEG/PNG file up to 10 MB, validate it with dry-run, and keep prior photos in history.

Instructions

Upload a new profile photo from a local .jpg/.jpeg/.png file (max 10 MB). Previous photos stay in your photo history. dry_run=True only validates the file.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "set_profile_photo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`dry_run`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds value on top of that by confirming the mutation is accumulative ("previous photos stay in your photo history") and by defining the non-mutating dry_run path, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of covering auth requirements or the response 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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and its constraints come first, and the dry_run behavior is appended as a secondary mode. Nothing is redundant with the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers format, size, history behavior, and the dry-run mode, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gaps are the non-obvious default of dry_run=true and any statement about auth or post-upload state.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it does: the path parameter is scoped to local .jpg/.jpeg/.png files under 10 MB, and dry_run is defined as validation-only. It leaves the dry_run default of true unstated and says nothing about relative vs absolute paths.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Upload a new profile photo") and adds concrete acceptance constraints: local .jpg/.jpeg/.png files, 10 MB cap. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling update_profile, which an agent may plausibly assume also modifies the photo.

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 implied by the file-type and size constraints and by the dry_run note, so an agent knows this is the file-upload path. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_profile, no stated prerequisite for the file's existence or location, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server