Schedule a broadcast to send later to a list or audience. Cancel with cancel_broadcast_schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone | No | IANA timezone scheduled_to is expressed in, e.g. America/New_York | |
| broadcast_id | Yes | The broadcast id | |
| recipient_id | Yes | The list or audience id | |
| scheduled_to | Yes | Wall-clock time of the send with no timezone offset, e.g. 2026-10-01T09:00:00 | |
| recipient_type | Yes | Whether to send to a list or an audience |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but description adds no details about side effects such as overwriting existing schedules, idempotency, or auth requirements. Since annotations are sparse (only booleans), the description could add more behavioral context, but it's not misleading.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the core action (schedule a broadcast to send later) and includes a useful pointer to the cancellation sibling. No wasted words, highly scannable.
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?
Covers the essential action and cancellation path. Parameter details are fully handled by schema. The description doesn't explicitly mention that the broadcast must already exist (broadcast_id required), but schema implies it. Adequate for a mutating scheduling tool.
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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb (schedule) and resource (broadcast) with recipient scope (list or audience). Clearly distinguishes from immediate send (send_broadcast) and creation (create_broadcast), and even mentions the cancellation alternative. An agent can easily identify this tool's role among many siblings.
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?
Implicitly says use for later sending, contrasting with immediate send. Mentions cancellation via cancel_broadcast_schedule, but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like send_broadcast for immediate sends or create_broadcast for creating the broadcast first. Good guidance but not exhaustive.
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.
