Get a broadcast's Elemental content.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"broadcast_id": "<broadcast_id>"
},
"name": "get_broadcast_content"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| broadcast_id | Yes | The broadcast id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds only the 'Elemental content' qualifier as extra context. It does not describe output shape, nullability, or other behavioral details, but for a straightforward read-only getter this is an acceptable baseline.
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?
The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource concisely, and every word earns its place.
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?
This is a one-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. The only minor gap is that 'Elemental content' is left undefined, which may leave an agent uncertain about the exact returned artifact.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with a clear description for broadcast_id, and the tool description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource as a broadcast's 'Elemental content', which distinguishes it from related tools like get_broadcast or put_broadcast_content. It does not explicitly explain what 'Elemental content' means, so it falls just short of full clarity.
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?
The description gives no indication of when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_broadcast, get_message_content, or put_broadcast_content. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers, leaving selection heuristics entirely to the agent.
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.