Send emergency broadcast notifications to users or groups via email, SMS, or push. Provide subject, body, and recipient sys_ids to alert them instantly.
[Write] Send emergency broadcast notification to users or groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Message body | |
| subject | Yes | Broadcast subject | |
| channels | No | Delivery channels: email,sms,push | |
| recipients | Yes | Comma-separated user/group sys_ids |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true), the description adds no behavioral context such as irreversibility, delivery guarantees, or impact. The '[Write]' prefix merely restates the mutation implied by annotations.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately concise for the low complexity of the tool.
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?
While the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, the description omits important context like potential delivery behavior, whether recipients must be sys_ids, or what response to expect. For an emergency tool with destructiveHint, more context would be helpful, so it falls at a minimum viable level.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the description need not add parameter details. It mentions recipients generically but adds no additional semantics beyond 'users or groups'.
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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('emergency broadcast notification') and audience ('users or groups'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling notification tools like send_push_notification or schedule_notification.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks context about urgency, confirmation, or when a broadcast is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.