List broadcasts in the workspace.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_broadcasts"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max broadcasts per page | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe for reads. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the action, such as pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. With annotations covering the read-only nature, the description offers minimal additional transparency.
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 description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning a high score for efficiency.
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?
For a simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, ordering, or the shape of returned data, which could be inferred from parameter names but are not explicitly stated. Given the annotations and schema, it is minimally complete but could be enhanced.
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?
Both parameters (limit, cursor) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('broadcasts') with scope ('workspace'), clearly distinguishing it from other list tools by resource type. It is unambiguous and directly actionable.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_broadcast or create_broadcast. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
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.