telegram-mcp

by resccrew

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

create_channel

Create a Telegram channel, optionally as a supergroup (megagroup), and set a public @username.

Instructions

Create a channel (megagroup=True creates a supergroup). Optional public @username.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`about`	No
`title`	Yes
`username`	No
`megagroup`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that megagroup=True creates a supergroup and username is optional, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or any constraints. It is a create operation, but no further context is given.

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?

A single, compact sentence with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional megagroup and username details follow logically.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description leaves gaps: it does not explain the 'about' parameter, the distinction between channel and supergroup beyond the megagroup flag, or expected username format. An agent would need to inspect the schema or guess.

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 explains the megagroup parameter's effect and username optionality, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare definitions. However, it does not explain the 'about' parameter or clarify username format (e.g., whether @ is included), so coverage is incomplete.

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 clearly states the action (create a channel) and specifies the resource (channel/supergroup). It distinguishes itself from create_group by focusing on channels, and the megagroup option adds specificity. The optional username is also mentioned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_group or join_chat. The description does not mention any exclusions or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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