telegram-ads-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upload_media

Upload a photo or video to generate a reusable media hash for ad campaigns. Accepts a local file path or base64-encoded media.

Instructions

Upload a photo (JPEG/PNG 16:9, <5 MB) or video (MP4 3–60s, <20 MB).

Pass a local file_path OR media_base64 (+ filename). Returns a media hash
to feed into create_ad(media=...) / edit_ad(media=...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ad_id`	No
`confirm`	No
`filename`	No
`file_path`	No
`media_base64`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON 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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only but non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: supported formats, size/duration limits, binary-vs-base64 input modes, and a returned media hash. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits the role of ad_id and confirm.

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 entire definition is two compact sentences with the core upload contract front-loaded. It packs constraints, input alternatives, and downstream usage without filler.

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 is adequate for the common upload-then-create path and the output schema backs the return value, but it omits two parameters (ad_id, confirm) and does not state when they matter. That leaves an agent unable to fully reason about all valid invocations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify file_path, media_base64, and filename, including the exclusive-or relationship, but it says nothing about ad_id or confirm, leaving 40% of the parameters unexplained.

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 ('Upload') and names the exact media resources with format, dimension, and size constraints. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating its output feeds create_ad and edit_ad, making its role in the ad workflow unambiguous.

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 clearly situates the tool in the ad-creation workflow: upload media first, then pass the resulting hash into create_ad or edit_ad. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative upload mechanism, so it stops short of a 5.

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