Send a Telegram message to a specified chat with optional parse mode, reply ID, and bot token. Use it for automated notifications, alerts, or workflow updates from UnClick.
Send a Telegram message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| bot_token | No | Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set. | |
| parse_mode | No | ||
| reply_to_message_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / bot_token / descriptionAdded value: +"Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "bot_token",
- "chat_id",
- "text"
-]New value: +[
+ "chat_id",
+ "text"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides almost nothing: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, whether delivery is synchronous, or what happens if chat_id is invalid. Only the schema's bot_token field hints at auth, and it is not echoed here.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clean sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded scope, format, or constraint information to anchor the call.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Five parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema — the description should explain the auth path, formatting options, and target resolution but covers none of it. Only the parameter names let an agent proceed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% — just bot_token is documented. The description adds no meaning for parse_mode (formatting behavior), reply_to_message_id (threading), or chat_id format, so the under-documented parameters stay opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb plus resource ("Send a Telegram message"), which is enough to distinguish it from telegram_read, telegram_search, and telegram_send_media by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the delivery scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this rather than telegram_send_media, telegram_manage_chat, or the many other messaging tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.