telegram-mcp

by resccrew

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

click_button

Press an inline keyboard button on a Telegram message by its text or grid position to trigger the associated action.

Instructions

Press a keyboard button under a message, by (part of) its text or by row/column (0-based).

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>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "click_button"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`row`	No
`chat`	Yes
`text`	No
`column`	No
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It explains how to identify a button but does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering a callback), error behavior if the button is not found, or whether the click is reversible. No behavior beyond the identification method is described.

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 entire definition is one front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action first, then the selection modes, all without redundancy.

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?

Despite being a relatively simple tool, the lack of annotations and 0% schema coverage leave the description as the only guidance. It omits the required chat parameter, does not explain the meaning of row/column in the keyboard layout, and provides no behavioral or error context. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains text matching ('part of its text') and row/column (0-based), but omits the 'chat' parameter entirely and does not clarify that chat and message_id are required. The phrase 'under a message' only implies message_id.

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 clearly states the action ('Press a keyboard button under a message') and the resource (a message's keyboard button), with specific identification methods. It is distinct from all sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the message containing an inline keyboard. Context is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.

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