get_broadcast_detailsFetch per-contact delivery details/results for a broadcast (who was reached, delivery status). Text-Em-All API: GET /v1/broadcasts/{id}/details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The BroadcastID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the read returns (per-contact reach and delivery status) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences with the resource and returned content front-loaded, so the agent reads the essential clause first. The trailing API endpoint note is mildly redundant with the tool name/route but not wasteful enough to drop the score further.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must indicate the return shape, and it does by naming per-contact delivery results and status. For a single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint already declared, this is close to sufficient; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter ('id', documented as the BroadcastID), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description confirms the id identifies a broadcast but adds no format or source guidance beyond that, matching the baseline.
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 ('Fetch') and a precisely scoped resource ('per-contact delivery details/results for a broadcast'), and even clarifies the returned content (who was reached, delivery status). This implicitly separates it from get_broadcast (broadcast-level) and list_broadcasts, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 scope 'per-contact delivery details' implies when this tool is the right one (you need individual delivery outcomes rather than a broadcast summary), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative to choose against.
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.