Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegraph-mcp

telegraph-mcp

Official
by telegraphprotocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Ask Telegraph

telegraph_ask

Ask the Telegraph network about live prices, FX, weather, research, security, code review, and more; get answers from top-ranked live miners.

Instructions

Ask the Telegraph network a question: live prices, FX, weather, web and academic search, security, code review, compliance and 100+ other intents. The node routes it to the best-ranked live miner and returns its answer in the intent's fields. Costs about $0.01, paid from the Telegraph escrow balance (a failed ask is never billed) or by x402 from the wallet's USDC.

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": "telegraph_ask"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoOptional exact intent, e.g. CRYPTO_PRICE_USD (see telegraph_find_intents). Only that intent's miners answer.
paramsNoOptional params for the intent, as telegraph_intent lists them, e.g. {"location": "Lahore"}. Needs intent.
questionNoThe question, in plain words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive call; the description adds substantial context beyond that: cost (~$0.01), the two payment rails (escrow balance vs x402 USDC from wallet), the guarantee that a failed ask is never billed, and that routing picks the best-ranked live miner. It stops short of describing timeout/failure modes or latency expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the commercial/routing details that affect the decision to call. Dense with no filler, though the long enumeration of intents and the payment sentence both run long enough to slow scanning slightly.

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 zero-required-param, open-world, paid query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it costs, how it is paid for, failure billing, and that results arrive in intent-specific fields. Remaining gaps (error shapes, availability when no miner is live, latency) are secondary for a tool of this shape.

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 100%, so the schema already explains intent, params, and question in detail, and the description adds only the useful note that the answer comes back in the intent's fields. It does not explain the interplay between question and intent (e.g., whether question is free-form and intent constrains routing) beyond what the schema implies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Ask the Telegraph network a question') and enumerates the domain coverage (prices, FX, weather, search, security, code review, compliance, 100+ intents), which makes the tool's scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like telegraph_ask_miner or telegraph_intent, which is the only gap.

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?

Usage is implied by the question-asking framing and the pricing note gives context for when spending is justified, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as telegraph_ask_miner for a pinned miner or telegraph_find_intents for discovery. The agent must infer the selection rules from sibling names.

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