mcp-agent-hub

broadcast

Sends a one-to-many notification to all agents, with message kinds such as announce, order, or report for coordinating multi-agent work.

Instructions

向全部 Agent 广播一条消息（一对多通知）。kind 可用 announce/order/report 等。

Tool call template

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "broadcast"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	No	announce
`agent`	No
`content`	Yes
`task_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that delivery is to all Agents and one-to-many, and gives kind examples, but it omits permissions, rate limits, delivery semantics, and whether broadcasts are retractable or error-prone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact clauses with the core action front-loaded. It contains no filler and remains readable despite limited information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, so the description should explain parameter roles and broadcast behavior. It covers purpose and kind examples but leaves agent/task_id semantics and delivery constraints undocumented; the output schema can cover return values, but the input side remains incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four parameters. It only partially documents kind by listing announce/order/report, and says nothing about agent, task_id, or the required content parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: broadcasting a message to all Agents as a one-to-many notification. This scope helps distinguish it from point-to-point messaging siblings such as send_message, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '向全部 Agent' and '一对多通知' implies the tool is for announcements to everyone, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to use this instead of send_message, report_progress, or escalate, nor does it provide exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.