Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stashcat-api-mcp

stashcat-api-mcp

by dclausen01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_broadcast_members

Retrieve the list of members for a broadcast list using its unique list ID.

Instructions

Lists members of a broadcast list.

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_broadcast_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYesBroadcast list ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Lists members') without mentioning read-only nature, permission requirements, pagination, or error behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves out important context such as the format of returned members, potential errors, and whether the broadcast list must exist. It does not fully compensate for the lack of output schema and annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter list_id with a clear description ('Broadcast list ID'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists members of a broadcast list.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_broadcast_members, remove_broadcast_members, and list_broadcasts, which involve different actions or resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with other member-listing tools (e.g., get_channel_members). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools