telegram-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_bot

Create a new Telegram bot through BotFather by submitting a name and a username that ends with 'bot', and obtain the bot token.

Instructions

Create a new bot via @BotFather. username must end with 'bot'. Returns the bot token.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "create_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`username`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the creation mechanism (@BotFather), a validation rule (username must end with 'bot'), and the return value (bot token), which are genuinely useful. It does not mention error cases or token security, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 description is a single tight sentence containing the essential action, the key constraint, and the return value. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical information: how the bot is created, the username rule, and the token. Minor gaps like clarifying the 'name' parameter and failure modes remain, but the tool is still actionable.

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

Parameters3/5

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 clearly explains the username constraint, but the 'name' parameter is only implicitly understood as the bot's display name. The description adds meaning for one parameter but leaves the other to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new bot via @BotFather.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_channel and create_group, and the username constraint further reinforces that this is bot creation rather than a general API wrapper.

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?

The description implies the tool is for creating a Telegram bot and even mentions @BotFather, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like bot_api or talk_to_bot, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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