Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telegraph-mcp

telegraph-mcp

Official
by telegraphprotocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Telegraph docs

telegraph_docs
Read-only

Read free Telegraph Protocol documentation by topic or search terms to understand setup, payments, intents and ranking, and troubleshoot errors.

Instructions

How Telegraph works: getting started, payments, intents and ranking, errors. Free.

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_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoA topic to read in full.
searchNoWords to look up across the docs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Free' (no cost), and says nothing about whether these are static docs, whether topic and search can be combined, or what is returned.

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 short fragments with no wasted words, and the topical scope is front-loaded. The only weakness is that brevity comes at the cost of a verb and of any routing information.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter read-only docs tool with a fully described schema, basic completeness is met. Still missing is how topic and search combine and why an agent should choose this over telegraph_ask.

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% and the enum documents all four topics, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description restates the topic names ('getting started, payments, intents and ranking, errors') but adds no detail on the 'search' parameter or on how the two parameters interact.

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 indicates the tool serves Telegraph documentation and lists the topical areas ('getting started, payments, intents and ranking, errors'), which aligns with the enum values. However, there is no verb (read/lookup) and no differentiation from the sibling telegraph_ask, so an agent cannot tell it apart from the Q&A tool with confidence.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to call this before telegraph_ask, nor when to pick 'topic' versus 'search'. The closest siblings (telegraph_ask, telegraph_find_intents) are never mentioned as alternatives.

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