telegram-ads-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create ad (full)

create_ad

Create a Telegram ad on hold with full targeting fields, then confirm activation when budget or active status requires it.

Instructions

Create an ad on_hold with the full targeting field set. Prefer launch_ad for the normal flow. Writes: confirm=true if budget>0 or active (gate). IDs semicolon-separated; no langs with channels.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cpm`	Yes
`bots`	No
`text`	No
`langs`	No
`media`	No
`title`	Yes
`active`	No	on_hold
`budget`	No	0
`button`	No
`device`	No
`topics`	No
`confirm`	No
`picture`	No
`channels`	No
`schedule`	No
`countries`	No
`locations`	No
`user_langs`	No
`audience_id`	No
`only_crypto`	No
`promote_url`	Yes
`schedule_tz`	No
`target_type`	No	channels
`user_topics`	No
`daily_budget`	No	0
`only_politic`	No
`website_name`	No
`activate_date`	No
`user_channels`	No
`exclude_crypto`	No
`exclude_topics`	No
`search_queries`	No
`views_per_user`	No	1
`deactivate_date`	No
`exclude_politic`	No
`conversion_event`	No
`exclude_channels`	No
`intersect_topics`	No
`schedule_tz_custom`	No
`exclude_user_topics`	No
`exclude_user_channels`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Confirm",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a confirmation gate ('confirm=true if budget>0 or active') and the fact that the ad is created on_hold. It also flags data-format constraints ('IDs semicolon-separated', 'no langs with channels') that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four telegraphic clauses, front-loaded with purpose and the alternative, with no filler. Density is good, though the extreme terseness leaves important operands unexplained for a 41-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the tool is highly complex (41 params, 3 required, 0% coverage) and the description covers only a fraction of the inputs and their formats. It is well short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

With 41 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema supplies no meaning and the description must compensate. It clarifies only a few: the confirm gate, semicolon-separated ID lists, and the langs/channels mutual exclusion; the remaining ~35 targeting, budget, and schedule parameters are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an ad') plus the distinguishing scope ('full targeting field set', created 'on_hold'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling launch_ad, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'Prefer launch_ad for the normal flow', implying this tool is for the full/advanced targeting path. It is clear context but does not spell out explicit when-not cases or other siblings like clone_ad or edit_ad.

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