Send photos, documents, videos, audio, or animations to a Telegram chat using a chat ID, media type, and media URL, with an optional caption.
Send media (photo/document/video) via Telegram.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caption | No | ||
| chat_id | Yes | ||
| bot_token | No | Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set. | |
| media_url | Yes | ||
| media_type | Yes | photo, document, video, audio |
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",
- "media_type",
- "media_url"
-]New value: +[
+ "chat_id",
+ "media_type",
+ "media_url"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an external send operation but does not disclose auth requirements, bot token fallback behavior, media size or URL constraints, caption limits, or failure behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.
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?
For a 5-parameter send/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks operational context about authentication, media type coverage, URL requirements, and what happens on success or failure.
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 40%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions photo/document/video but omits audio and animation from the enum, and does not explain chat_id, media_url, caption, or the optional bot_token behavior beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: send media via Telegram, with examples of media types. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic telegram_send, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus telegram_send, telegram_search, or other Telegram tools. It also omits prerequisites such as chat availability, bot token setup, or media URL accessibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.