Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claudegram

Claudegram

by sanjar-x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

auth_request_code

Request an SMS verification code from Telegram to authenticate your session. Clears previous auth state and returns code_sent status with masked phone number.

Instructions

Шаг 1: запросить SMS-код у Telegram. Очищает предыдущий auth-state.

Возвращает: ok: True если код отправлен code_sent: True phone: куда отправлен (масковано последние 4 цифры) already_authorized: True если сессия уже валидна (код не нужен)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "auth_request_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that it 'clears previous auth-state' and returns already_authorized status, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, this additional detail is valuable and does not contradict them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a structured list of return fields. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with a described output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, side effects, and return semantics. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for parameter explanation. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return values.

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 tool's function: 'request SMS code from Telegram' and labels it 'Step 1' in the auth flow. This distinguishes it from sibling auth_submit_code, as it covers the request phase, not code submission.

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?

The description provides context by identifying this as 'Step 1' and mentioning the already_authorized case where no code is needed. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools