Retrieve a single broadcast by ID to review its audience, content, schedule, and delivery status. Use it to inspect one campaign before sending or after it runs.
Get one broadcast: audience, content, schedule and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Broadcast id from list_broadcasts |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds a view of which fields come back, but nothing about auth scope, error behavior, or freshness of the schedule/status data.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the payload. No filler, though it is terse enough that structure alone carries no additional routing signal.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the returned sections. Only error/not-found behavior is left unstated.
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 the single id parameter is documented with a useful provenance hint ('from list_broadcasts'), which the schema already carries. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Get) and resource (broadcast) plus the contents returned (audience, content, schedule, status). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_broadcasts by saying 'one broadcast', but never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetching a single broadcast by id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_broadcasts, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the id is unknown or access is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.