get_broadcastRetrieve one broadcast by ID to view its template, schedule, send rate, and delivery stats including total, sent, delivered, and failed counts. Read-only.
Return one broadcast with its template, schedule, send rate and stats (total, sent, delivered, failed). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| broadcast_id | Yes | Broadcast ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so "Read-only" is largely redundant, but the description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the returned payload down to the individual stat counters. It stops short of describing behavior for an unknown or expired broadcast_id.
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?
One front-loaded sentence lists the returned components efficiently, with no preamble. The trailing "Read-only." adds little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation already present, a minor redundancy rather than a flaw.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by naming the composite fields and the four stat counters. The only gap is error/edge-case behavior, which is minor for a simple getter.
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?
The single broadcast_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including a regex pattern, so the description needn't repeat it. No added semantic detail on the identifier is offered, which matches the baseline for a fully covered schema.
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?
"Return one broadcast" is a specific verb+resource, and the enumeration of what comes back (template, schedule, send rate, stats) further pins it down. The singularity of "one broadcast" implicitly separates it from list_broadcasts, though no sibling is named outright.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching a single broadcast's detail rather than enumerating them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on which identifier form to pass, and no alternative tool named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.