Skip to main content
Glama
sparfenyuk

Telegram MCP Server

by sparfenyuk
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: ListDialogs retrieves available dialogs/chats/channels, while ListMessages retrieves messages within a specific dialog/chat/channel. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with PascalCase naming (ListDialogs, ListMessages). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for a Telegram integration. While the tools are well-defined, there are obvious gaps in functionality (e.g., sending messages, managing channels, handling media) that limit its usefulness.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a Telegram server. It only provides read-only listing capabilities for dialogs and messages, missing essential operations like sending messages, creating/editing channels, handling files, or any write/update actions that would be expected in a messaging platform integration.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (listing) without mentioning permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it lacks depth, which affects completeness but not conciseness.

    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?

    Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means, how results are returned, or parameter usage, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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

    Parameters1/5

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

    The description repeats the tool name and provides no information about parameters. With 3 parameters (unread, archived, ignore_pinned) and 0% schema description coverage, the schema only provides titles and types without explanations. The description fails to compensate by adding any meaning or context for these parameters, leaving them undocumented.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description states the tool's purpose as listing available dialogs, chats, and channels, which is clear but vague. It uses the verb 'list' with the resources 'dialogs, chats and channels', but doesn't specify scope (e.g., all or filtered) or distinguish it from the sibling tool ListMessages. This makes it adequate but with gaps in specificity.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool ListMessages, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the ordering (newest to oldest), the effect of 'unread' (filters to unread only and excludes read messages), and how 'limit' interacts with 'unread' (minimum between them). However, it misses details like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation (listing can imply read access).

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains ordering, and the subsequent ones detail parameter effects without redundancy. There's zero waste, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides a decent foundation by explaining purpose and parameter interactions. However, it lacks information on return values (e.g., message format), error cases, or authentication requirements, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding in a read operation.

    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 must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of 'unread' (filters to unread messages and excludes read ones) and 'limit' (applies to last messages, with interaction rules when combined with 'unread'). This covers key aspects of the 3 parameters, though it doesn't detail 'dialog_id' beyond context.

    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 verb ('List') and resource ('messages in a given dialog, chat or channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ListDialogs' by specifying messages rather than dialogs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential alternatives beyond the sibling tool, keeping it from a perfect score.

    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 usage by explaining the effects of the 'unread' and 'limit' parameters, which suggests when to use them. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. a search tool or the sibling 'ListDialogs'), and doesn't mention prerequisites like required permissions or context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-telegram MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-telegram MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sparfenyuk/mcp-telegram'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server