neuron_get_broadcast_recipientsRetrieve the paginated list of recipients for a specific broadcast with their individual delivery status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique identifier (UUID) of the broadcast | |
| page | No | Page number for pagination (default: 1) | |
| limit | No | Number of recipients per page (default: 20) | |
| status | No | Filter recipients by delivery status (e.g., 'delivered', 'failed', 'pending') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are paginated and include delivery status, but does not detail permissions, rate limits, or other behaviors. With annotations covering core traits, this is adequate.
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?
A single sentence of 16 words that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is concise with no filler, front-loading the main action and resource.
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?
The description covers the basic function but lacks details on output format or response structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. For a simple read-only paginated list tool, it is minimally complete but could mention what fields are returned (e.g., recipient ID, status).
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 100% with each parameter described. The tool description mentions pagination and delivery status, which adds context but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'paginated list of recipients for a specific broadcast', and adds key details like pagination and delivery status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neuron_get_broadcast or neuron_list_broadcasts by focusing on recipients.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies you need a broadcast ID but does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it. Among siblings, there are multiple list/get tools, and no differentiation criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type, but there is meaningful overlap in messaging entry points (send_message, send_whatsapp, compose_message, bot_api_send) and contact ingestion/sync tools (import_contacts, populate_contacts, sync_whatsapp_contacts). The descriptions help disambiguate, but with 309 tools an agent will frequently need to read closely to pick the right one.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*. Minor deviations like sales_stats, lead_stats, wallet_balance, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but overall naming is highly predictable.
309 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server, even a broad platform. This creates significant cognitive load and navigation overhead for agents, and far exceeds the well-scoped 3-15 tool range where coherence is strongest.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive across bots, contacts, campaigns, flows, knowledge bases, personas, marketplace, wallet, and products. Minor gaps exist — lead sources lack update/delete tools, and there is no single get_task or get_webhook alongside their list/update/delete counterparts — but these are workable gaps rather than dead ends.