get_broadcastRead a specific Kit email broadcast by numeric ID to view its saved details, status, and audience targeting within your newsletter account.
Get a broadcast. Reads account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private account from KIT_ACCOUNTS. Defaults to KIT_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT or the first configured account. | |
| broadcast_id | Yes | Positive broadcast id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that, and its "Reads account data" phrasing is confusing for a broadcast-reading tool rather than useful behavioral context.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence does not earn its place: it repeats the read nature already implied and introduces a misleading resource reference rather than adding information.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should convey what a broadcast read returns, but it only says "Reads account data." For a retrieval tool with no return-shape documentation, this leaves an important gap.
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%, so both the account and broadcast_id parameters are documented in the schema (positive id, account defaulting behavior). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource ("Get a broadcast"), but it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many siblings reading the same broadcast resource (list_broadcasts, get_broadcast_stats, get_broadcast_clicks). The second sentence ("Reads account data") is vague and arguably misdescribes the resource the tool targets.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_broadcasts, get_broadcast_stats, or get_broadcast_clicks. No prerequisites or context for retrieval are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.