Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Kit MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a broadcast

update_broadcast
Destructive

Update a broadcast's content, schedule, audience, or publishing state. Requires confirm=true for delivery, audience, publishing, or irreversible changes.

Instructions

Update a broadcast. May affect delivery, audience membership, published data or irreversible state. Requires confirm=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publicNo`true` to publish this broadcast to the web. The broadcast will appear in a newsletter feed on your Creator Profile and Landing Pages.
accountNoNamed private account from KIT_ACCOUNTS. Defaults to KIT_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT or the first configured account.
confirmNoMust be true for audience/delivery changes, publishing, destructive operations and signing-secret changes. Use only for an action requested by the user.
contentNoThe HTML content of the email. On a `Classic` template this is the body, and the template adds the design around it when the broadcast is sent. On a `Starting point` template the design lives in the body, so this is the complete email: keep the wrappers, images, inline styles and Liquid tags, including `{{ unsubscribe_url }}` and `{{ address }}`. Without an unsubscribe link the broadcast can't be sent. A read returns the string that was written, so `GET`, `PUT`, `GET` round-trips, apart from Kit's own "Built with Kit" badge, which a `Starting point` write takes out of the body and re-applies when the email renders. A broadcast built in Kit's editor reads back as Kit's rendered HTML instead, and writing that back replaces its individually-editable blocks with one HTML block. Sending `content` in the same request as a `Starting point` `email_template_id` also needs `allow_starting_point: true`.
payloadNoComplete JSON body instead of individual body flags. Supports nullable fields and nested bulk structures. Cannot be combined with body flags or payload_file.
send_atNoThe scheduled send time for this broadcast in ISO8601 format. If no timezone is provided, UTC is assumed.
subjectNo
descriptionNo
broadcast_idYesPositive broadcast id.
payload_fileNoLocal JSON request body file, at most 5 MB. Contents are validated before the API call and are never logged.
preview_textNo
published_atNoThe published timestamp to display in ISO8601 format. If no timezone is provided, UTC is assumed.
email_addressNoThe sending email address to use. Uses the account's sending email address if not provided.
thumbnail_altNo
thumbnail_urlNo
email_template_idNoId of the email template to use. Uses the account's default template if not provided. 'Starting point' template is not supported.
subscriber_filterNoFilters your subscribers. At this time, we only support using only one filter group type via the API (e.g. `all`, `any`, or `none` but no combinations). If nothing is provided, will default to all of your subscribers.
allow_starting_pointNoExplicitly allow replacing a Starting point template body, as described in Kit’s current content-field documentation. Review the complete rendered HTML first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly carried structurally. The description goes beyond them by disclosing specific consequences (affecting delivery, audience membership, published data, irreversible state) and the confirm=true gate, which is real added context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The high-impact warning and the confirm requirement are front-loaded, and every clause carries weight.

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?

For an 18-parameter destructive tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety gate but says nothing about the payload vs. body-flag exclusivity, allow_starting_point coupling, or content round-trip caveats that live only in the schema. It is adequate but leaves meaningful complexity unaddressed above the schema level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 72%, so the schema does most of the heavy lifting and documents confirm in detail. The description's only parameter-level contribution is reiterating "Requires confirm=true," which is already stated in the schema. With high-ish coverage and nested structures this is baseline-appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Update a broadcast") and usefully enumerates the domains the change can touch (delivery, audience membership, published data, irreversible state). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_broadcast or delete_broadcast, but the scope clause helps disambiguate this as a mutation of an existing broadcast.

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 description implies when the tool is appropriate by flagging the high-blast-radius nature and the confirm=true requirement, but it never names an alternative sibling or states explicit when-not conditions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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