Telegram MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check an exact Telegram pin operation

telegram_get_pin_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a durable pin or unpin operation succeeded by reading its exact target state; reuse the same operation_id after timeouts instead of retrying or dispatching changes.

Instructions

Read a durable pin/unpin result and reconcile only by reading its exact target.

Never dispatches or retries a pin change. Reuse the SAME operation_id after unknown, timeout or connection loss; never invent a replacement retry ID. Observed state can have been changed by another device or administrator.

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": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "telegram_get_pin_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`action`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`chat_id`	Yes
`user_id`	Yes
`chat_title`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`dispatched`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes
`observed_at`	No
`operation_id`	Yes
`trust_boundary`	No
`observed_is_pinned`	Yes
`disable_notification`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.12.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value beyond them by stating it never dispatches or retries a pin change and that observed state may have been changed by another device or administrator. The staleness warning is important context the annotations cannot convey. Minor gap: no mention of how long a durable result is retained or what a result looks like for a still-pending operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Short, front-loaded with the core read action, then followed by the retry and staleness rules. Every sentence carries an instruction an agent needs. The phrasing 'durable pin/unpin result' and 'reconcile' is slightly abstract and the line breaks fragment sentences, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple: one identifier in, output schema covering the return shape. The description covers the only hard parts of calling it correctly — reusing the exact operation_id and not treating another actor's changes as this operation's result. No essential calling information is missing.

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 carries the burden for operation_id, and it does so well: the ID identifies the exact prior pin operation whose outcome is being reconciled, must be reused after unknown/timeout/connection loss, and must not be replaced with a freshly invented retry ID. The 32-hex format is left to the schema pattern, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a durable pin/unpin result', plus the constraint 'reconcile only by reading its exact target'. This is clearly a status/result lookup rather than a mutation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling telegram_get_pin_info, so an agent must infer the difference between 'pin status of an operation' and 'pin info of a chat'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the failure path: reuse the SAME operation_id after unknown, timeout or connection loss, never invent a replacement retry ID. That is exactly the decision an agent faces after an ambiguous pin call. It does not state when to prefer this over telegram_get_pin_info or what to do if the operation_id is entirely unknown/expired.

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

Deploy Server