Retrieve campaign performance metrics for a set number of days to track engagement trends and measure marketing impact.
Get campaign performance analytics over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| length | Yes | Number of days to return (max 100) | |
| ending_at | No | End date (ISO 8601) | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. 'Over time' hints at a time series, but return format, granularity, and pagination remain undocumented.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple analytics retrieval tool.
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?
For a five-parameter analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify available metrics, time-range behavior beyond the schema, or how it relates to other analytics siblings, leaving important context missing.
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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'Get campaign performance analytics over time.' It is not a tautology and conveys the core action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like sends_analytics or canvas_analytics, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this is for campaign-level analytics rather than sends, canvas, segments, or events analytics. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.