upload_mediaUpload a photo or video file to obtain a media hash, required before creating or editing Telegram ads.
Upload a photo (16:9, <5 MB) or video (MP4 3-60s, <20 MB) by file_path or media_base64. Use before create_ad/edit_ad media=. Returns the media hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_id | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| filename | No | ||
| file_path | No | ||
| media_base64 | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Confirm",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds value beyond them: concrete format/size limits (16:9 <5 MB photo, MP4 3-60s <20 MB video) and the return value. It omits that re-uploading the same file yields a new hash (non-idempotent) and says nothing about permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short clauses, each load-bearing: format constraints first, sequencing second, return value last. No filler and the critical constraints are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully names the hash. For a mutation tool with annotations and a rich schema it is nearly complete, with the main gap being the unexplained confirm/ad_id parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains file_path and media_base64 as the two upload sources. However it says nothing about ad_id, confirm (a boolean defaulting to false, likely a confirmation gate), or filename, leaving three of five parameters undocumented anywhere.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (upload) and resource (photo/video media) plus the accepted input modes (file_path or media_base64) and the output (media hash). It also implicitly separates itself from create_ad/edit_ad, which consume the hash rather than produce it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use it before create_ad/edit_ad media=, which is a real sequencing instruction tied to named siblings. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., reusing an existing hash) or any auth/precondition, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.