mcp-telegram-agent

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
The two sending tools (send_telegram_notification and telegram_send_and_wait_reply) overlap in message types and could be confused, though the blocking/waiting behavior distinguishes them. Other tools are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a 'telegram_' prefix convention, but send_telegram_notification breaks the pattern by placing 'telegram' at the end. Additionally, telegram_config_status is a noun phrase rather than a verb, mixing command and state check styles.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Telegram agent, covering onboarding, sending, waiting for replies, and editing messages without unnecessary redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The main workflow is supported: onboarding verification, sending messages, and replying via edit. A notable gap is the lack of a tool to handle incoming Telegram updates initiated by the user, but the core lifecycle is covered.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on May 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool prepares instructions and auto-generates config but doesn't say whether this is a read/write operation, what inputs it consumes, what outputs the agent can expect, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a setup tool.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the purpose and front-loaded with the key action.
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 that this tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (botToken, setupCode, serverName, packageName). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's raw property names, so the agent gets no help in understanding what each parameter should contain.
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 tool prepares onboarding instructions to link a Telegram bot and auto-generate MCP config. It names a specific verb and resource, and the outcome is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like telegram_onboarding_verify, but the distinct action of 'preparing' vs 'verifying' is lightly implied.
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 the sibling tools. No prerequisites, sequencing, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without context on when this step is appropriate.
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, the description must carry the safety/side-effect burden. It does disclose that chat_id confirmation is required and that a test message may be sent, which is useful. But it omits whether existing configs are overwritten, whether the setup code is consumed, or what happens on failed verification.
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?
Single sentence with front-loaded verb and a concise list of outcomes. Every clause adds information, with no filler or repetition.
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?
This is a complex multi-step tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. The description lacks prerequisites, return values, and details of the confirmation flow, so an agent cannot fully anticipate side effects or expected results.
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?
The description maps several parameters indirectly (setupCode, chat_id confirmation, test message, MCP config) but leaves 'limit' unexplained and never explicitly ties botToken/serverName/packageName to their roles. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.
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 opens with the specific action 'Verify setup code in Telegram updates' and lists concrete outputs (MCP config, test message). It is clear about the tool's resource and outcome, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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 this is the verification/finalization step after receiving a setup code, and it mentions key sub-steps. However, it never states when to use this tool versus telegram_onboarding_prepare or send_telegram_notification, nor any preconditions like needing a bot token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing mutation behavior. It merely says 'edit' without stating that the original message is overwritten, that a 'Edited' marker appears, or any permissions/error conditions. This lacks transparency for a mutating operation.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to purpose and usage.
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?
The tool is simple, but completeness is limited by missing behavioral transparency, no return value/error details, and the undocumented parseMode parameter. It covers the core purpose and usage, but an agent is left without context for edge cases or expected results.
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 coverage is 67% (text and messageId have descriptions, but parseMode does not). The tool description does not add meaning beyond repeating 'message_id' and provides no clarification for parseMode, leaving a gap for one parameter.
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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('previously sent Telegram message') with the method ('by its message_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that send new messages or handle onboarding.
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?
Provides a clear usage context ('Use to replace the ACK with a final response') that implies this tool is for editing after an initial acknowledgment. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'check', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the configuration is invalid, whether errors are thrown, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or failure modes.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized.
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 no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only states 'check whether...valid', leaving the return format unstated. It also does not mention any preconditions or what 'valid' means. This leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. It correctly does not add any irrelevant parameter information.
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: checking Telegram configuration validity for the MCP server. The verb 'check' is specific and the resource ('Telegram configuration') is unambiguous. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like sending notifications or onboarding, so there is no confusion.
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 implies a clear usage context: use this tool when you need to verify that Telegram configuration is valid. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency on its own. It usefully clarifies that media requires either url or base64Data and that text can serve as a caption, but it doesn't disclose error handling, delivery guarantees, or return behavior, leaving gaps.
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 four short sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds information about capabilities or constraints, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
The description adequately covers what content can be sent and the media constraint, but it omits any mention of parseMode, disableNotification, or the tool's return value. Given the tool has a nested media object and no output schema, these omissions leave it less complete than ideal.
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?
The schema already documents the media subfields and the message-as-caption behavior. The description adds the combination rules (text only, media only, or media+caption) but doesn't clarify parseMode or disableNotification, which remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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 opens with 'Send a notification to the configured Telegram chat,' clearly identifying the action and target. It distinguishes itself from siblings like telegram_send_and_wait_reply by emphasizing 'notification' rather than interactive reply.
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 outlines supported content types and the media/text combinations, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it (e.g., when a reply is needed), leaving some usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking behavior, the instant ACK mechanism, and that it returns reply text plus ack_message_id for later editing. It does not cover timeout/error behavior, but the schema documents waitTimeoutSeconds partially, and the key behavioral traits are transparent.
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 compressed into a few sentences, each providing unique value: purpose, media options, input constraints, ACK behavior, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly long but no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested media object, blocking behavior, ACK, no output schema), the description explains the return value and when it returns. It does not explicitly mention the timeout outcome but the schema covers waitTimeoutSeconds. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how to combine text and media ('text only, media only, or media + caption together') and clarifying that 'message' serves as a caption when media is attached. It also emphasizes the 'either url or base64Data' constraint for the media object.
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 a specific verb+resource: 'Send a message to Telegram and block until a reply arrives in the same chat.' This distinguishes it from siblings like send_telegram_notification (which presumably does not wait) and telegram_edit_message. It also enumerates supported content types (text, photo, audio, document), making the scope precise.
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 implies when to use the tool ('block until a reply arrives') and that it supports text/media combinations, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like send_telegram_notification. It provides clear context without exclusions.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-telegram-agent MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tecnomanu/mcp-telegram-agent/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tecnomanu/mcp-telegram-agent)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-telegram-agent MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tecnomanu/mcp-telegram-agent/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/tecnomanu/mcp-telegram-agent)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/tecnomanu/mcp-telegram-agent'

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