Skip to main content
Glama
uk-kd

operbots-mcp

by uk-kd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Рассылки дела

broadcasts_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

List broadcasts with delivery stats and statuses. Filter by bot, case, or query to track sent, failed, and skipped messages.

Instructions

Рассылки дела с условиями отбора, текстом и счётчиками: скольким ушло, скольким не дошло и сколько пропущено — это те, кто закрыл боту рот. Состояния: draft — черновик, его ещё можно править и запускать; scheduled — ждёт своего срока или ближайшего оборота рассыльщика; running — идёт; done — закончена; cancelled — остановлена; failed — не с чего было начать.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoПодстрока названия или текста.
botNoОтобрать рассылки этого бота.
caseNoДело: название или идентификатор. Если не указать, берётся дело по умолчанию, иначе последнее открытое в панели.
limitNoСколько записей вернуть, максимум 100. По умолчанию 30.
offsetNoСколько записей пропустить.
statusNolive — scheduled/running; done — done/cancelled; draft и failed отдельно.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / bot
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Отобрать рассылки этого бота.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / q
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Подстрока названия или текста.",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / status
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "live — scheduled/running; done — done/cancelled; draft и failed отдельно.",
+  "enum": [
+    "",
+    "live",
+    "draft",
+    "done",
+    "failed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.1.14

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain behavior beyond that: it interprets the delivery counters (skipped = user blocked the bot) and explains what each lifecycle state means operationally (draft is still editable and launchable, scheduled waits for the next sender pass), which an agent cannot derive from the enum alone.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before drilling into status states; nothing is off-topic and there is no filler. The parenthetical about skipped recipients is colloquial but still informative, so the density stays justified.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, idempotent list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the counter meanings, and the full status vocabulary. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries every parameter, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by expanding each state beyond the schema's terse 'live — scheduled/running; done — done/cancelled' mapping, clarifying what draft, running, cancelled and failed actually represent. This meaningfully enriches the status filter semantics rather than restating them.

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 names the resource (рассылки дела) and enumerates the fields returned — selection conditions, text, and delivery counters — so an agent knows this is a list/read of case broadcasts. It never contrasts itself with siblings like broadcasts_get, broadcasts_targets, or broadcasts_start, so routing still requires inference, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives (broadcasts_get, broadcasts_targets, broadcasts_preview all live in the same namespace). The status vocabulary hints at filtering, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice versus the other broadcast tools.

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