| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 1 | 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 12 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Builds a compact abstract syntax tree (AST) representation of codebases across multiple programming languages without language-specific parsers. Uses a unified graph schema to represent code structure (functions, classes, imports, dependencies) as nodes and edges, enabling consistent analysis regardless of source language. The graph is serialized into a compact format optimized for LLM token consumption.
Unique: Implements a unified graph schema that abstracts away language-specific syntax differences, allowing a single traversal and serialization pipeline to work across Python, JavaScript, Go, Java, and other languages without maintaining separate parsers for each
vs alternatives: More token-efficient than sending raw source code or language-specific ASTs to LLMs because it strips syntax noise and represents only structural relationships, reducing context window usage by 60-80% compared to full-file inclusion
Converts the constructed code graph into a compact, LLM-friendly text representation that minimizes token count while preserving semantic relationships. Uses techniques like symbol deduplication, hierarchical summarization, and selective edge inclusion to create a serialized format that fits within LLM context windows. The output is optimized for both readability and token efficiency, enabling larger codebases to fit in a single prompt.
Unique: Implements a hierarchical summarization strategy that preserves call chains and dependency paths while aggressively deduplicating symbols and removing redundant structural information, achieving 70-90% token reduction compared to raw source code while maintaining LLM reasoning capability
vs alternatives: More effective than naive token counting or simple truncation because it understands code structure and prioritizes semantically important relationships (imports, function signatures, class hierarchies) over syntactic details, preserving reasoning quality even at high compression ratios
Automatically identifies and maps all import statements, module dependencies, and inter-file references within a codebase, building a directed graph of dependencies. Handles multiple import syntaxes (ES6 imports, CommonJS require, Python imports, Go imports, etc.) through pattern matching and heuristic analysis. Produces a queryable dependency graph that reveals code coupling, circular dependencies, and module boundaries without executing code.
Unique: Uses multi-pattern regex matching and heuristic fallback strategies to handle import syntax variations across languages, combined with optional path resolution configuration, enabling accurate dependency mapping even in polyglot codebases without language-specific tooling
vs alternatives: Faster and more portable than language-specific tools (like npm audit or Python import analysis) because it avoids installing language runtimes and dependencies, while remaining accurate enough for architectural analysis and refactoring planning
Parses and extracts function/method signatures, class definitions, and their metadata (parameters, return types, visibility modifiers, decorators) from source code across multiple languages. Uses regex-based pattern matching and lightweight AST-like analysis to identify callable entities and their interfaces without full semantic parsing. Stores signatures in a queryable format that enables LLMs to understand the public API surface of code modules.
Unique: Combines regex-based pattern matching with lightweight context-aware parsing to extract signatures while preserving parameter names, types, and decorators in a structured format that LLMs can directly use for code generation and analysis without additional parsing
vs alternatives: More efficient than running full language-specific compilers or type checkers because it extracts only the interface layer needed for LLM reasoning, reducing overhead while maintaining sufficient detail for code generation and documentation tasks
Creates an in-memory or persistent index of the code graph that enables fast queries for specific symbols, functions, files, or relationships. Supports queries like 'find all callers of function X', 'list all files importing module Y', or 'get the dependency chain from A to B'. Uses hash maps, adjacency lists, or similar data structures for O(1) or O(log n) lookup performance. Enables LLM agents to dynamically retrieve relevant code context based on user queries.
Unique: Implements multi-index strategy with hash maps for symbol lookup, adjacency lists for traversal, and optional reverse indices for caller/dependency queries, enabling constant-time lookups while supporting complex graph traversal operations needed for impact analysis
vs alternatives: Faster than re-parsing or re-analyzing code on each query because the index is built once and reused, and more flexible than static analysis tools because it supports arbitrary graph queries without requiring language-specific tooling
Generates human-readable summaries and documentation from the code graph by combining function signatures, dependency information, and structural metadata. Creates markdown or HTML documentation that describes module purposes, public APIs, and inter-module relationships. Uses the graph structure to automatically organize documentation by module hierarchy and dependency chains, reducing manual documentation effort.
Unique: Leverages the code graph structure to automatically organize documentation by module hierarchy and dependency relationships, creating hierarchical documentation that reflects actual code organization rather than requiring manual structure definition
vs alternatives: More maintainable than manually written documentation because it's generated from the code graph and can be regenerated when code changes, and more comprehensive than docstring-based tools because it includes dependency and architecture information
Identifies common code patterns and idioms across multiple programming languages by analyzing the code graph for recurring structural motifs (e.g., factory patterns, dependency injection, middleware chains). Uses heuristic matching on function signatures, class hierarchies, and call patterns to detect design patterns without language-specific semantic analysis. Enables LLMs to understand architectural patterns and suggest refactorings based on pattern recognition.
Unique: Uses heuristic matching on structural graph properties (function signatures, call chains, class hierarchies) rather than semantic analysis, enabling pattern detection across languages while remaining computationally lightweight and not requiring language-specific tooling
vs alternatives: More portable than language-specific linters or static analysis tools because it works across polyglot codebases, and more practical than manual code review because it automates pattern detection at scale
Tracks changes to the codebase between versions by comparing code graphs and identifying added, modified, or removed functions, classes, imports, and dependencies. Produces a delta representation showing what changed in the code structure without requiring full re-analysis. Enables LLM agents to understand code evolution and generate change summaries or migration guides.
Unique: Compares code graphs structurally rather than performing text-based diffing, enabling accurate detection of structural changes (function additions, signature modifications, dependency changes) even when code is reformatted or reorganized
vs alternatives: More accurate than git diff for understanding code structure changes because it identifies semantic changes (function signature modifications, import changes) rather than just line-level differences, and more useful for API versioning than text-based diffs
+1 more capabilities
Sends text messages, media files, and formatted content to Telegram chats and channels through the Telegram Bot API. Implements message routing logic that resolves chat identifiers (numeric IDs, usernames, or channel handles) to API endpoints, handles message formatting (Markdown/HTML), and manages delivery confirmation through API response parsing. Supports batch message operations and message editing after delivery.
Unique: Wraps Telegram Bot API message endpoints as MCP tools, enabling LLM agents to send messages through a standardized tool-calling interface rather than direct API calls. Abstracts chat identifier resolution and message formatting into a single composable capability.
vs alternatives: Simpler integration than raw Telegram Bot API for MCP-based agents because it handles authentication and endpoint routing transparently, while maintaining full API feature support.
Retrieves message history from Telegram chats and channels by querying the Telegram Bot API for recent messages, with filtering by date range, sender, or message type. Implements pagination logic to handle large message sets and parses API responses into structured message objects containing sender info, timestamps, content, and media metadata. Supports reading from both private chats and public channels.
Unique: Exposes Telegram message retrieval as MCP tools with built-in pagination and filtering, allowing LLM agents to fetch and reason over chat history without managing API pagination or response parsing themselves. Structures raw API responses into agent-friendly formats.
vs alternatives: More accessible than direct Telegram Bot API calls for agents because it abstracts pagination and response normalization; simpler than building a custom Telegram client library for basic history needs.
Telegram MCP Server scores higher at 60/100 vs code-graph-llm at 29/100. code-graph-llm leads on ecosystem, while Telegram MCP Server is stronger on adoption and quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Integrates with Telegram's webhook system to receive real-time updates (messages, callbacks, edits) via HTTP POST requests. The MCP server can be configured to work with webhook-based bots (alternative to polling), receiving updates from Telegram's servers and routing them to connected LLM clients. Supports update filtering and acknowledgment.
Unique: Bridges Telegram's webhook system into MCP, enabling event-driven bot architectures. Handles webhook registration and update routing without requiring polling loops.
vs alternatives: Lower latency than polling because updates arrive immediately; more scalable than getUpdates polling because it eliminates constant API calls and reduces rate-limit pressure.
Translates Telegram Bot API errors and responses into structured MCP-compatible formats. The MCP server catches API failures (rate limits, invalid parameters, permission errors) and maps them to descriptive error objects that LLMs can reason about. Implements retry logic for transient failures and provides actionable error messages.
Unique: Implements error mapping layer that translates raw Telegram API errors into LLM-friendly error objects. Provides structured error information that LLMs can use for decision-making and recovery.
vs alternatives: More actionable than raw API errors because it provides context and recovery suggestions; more reliable than ignoring errors because it enables LLM agents to handle failures intelligently.
Registers custom bot commands (e.g., /start, /help, /custom) and routes incoming Telegram messages containing those commands to handler functions. Implements command parsing logic that extracts command names and arguments from message text, matches them against registered handlers, and invokes the appropriate handler with parsed parameters. Supports command help text generation and command discovery via /help.
Unique: Provides MCP-compatible command registration and dispatch, allowing agents to define Telegram bot commands as MCP tools rather than managing raw message parsing. Decouples command definition from message handling logic.
vs alternatives: Cleaner than raw message event handling because it abstracts command parsing and routing; more flexible than hardcoded command lists because handlers can be registered dynamically at runtime.
Fetches metadata about Telegram chats and channels including member counts, titles, descriptions, pinned messages, and permissions. Queries the Telegram Bot API for chat information and parses responses into structured objects. Supports both private chats and public channels, with different metadata availability depending on bot permissions and chat type.
Unique: Exposes Telegram chat metadata as queryable MCP tools, allowing agents to inspect chat state and permissions without direct API calls. Structures metadata into agent-friendly formats with permission flags.
vs alternatives: More convenient than raw API calls for agents because it abstracts permission checking and response normalization; enables agents to make permission-aware decisions before attempting actions.
Retrieves information about Telegram users and chat members including usernames, first/last names, profile pictures, and member status (admin, restricted, etc.). Queries the Telegram Bot API for user objects and member information, with support for looking up users by ID or username. Returns structured user profiles with permission and status flags.
Unique: Provides user and member lookup as MCP tools with structured output, enabling agents to make permission-aware and user-aware decisions. Abstracts API response parsing and permission flag interpretation.
vs alternatives: Simpler than raw API calls for agents because it returns normalized user objects with permission flags; enables agents to check user status without managing API response structure.
Edits or deletes previously sent messages in Telegram chats by message ID. Implements message lifecycle management through Telegram Bot API endpoints, supporting text content updates, media replacement, and inline keyboard modifications. Handles permission checks and error cases (e.g., message too old to edit, insufficient permissions).
Unique: Exposes message editing and deletion as MCP tools with built-in permission and time-window validation, allowing agents to manage message state without directly handling API constraints. Abstracts 48-hour edit window checks.
vs alternatives: More agent-friendly than raw API calls because it validates edit eligibility before attempting operations; enables agents to implement message lifecycle patterns without manual constraint checking.
+4 more capabilities