Retrieve detailed information for a specific Braze campaign using its campaign ID, enabling AI assistants to access campaign specifics within the Braze platform.
Get details for a specific campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires an existing campaign, or what the response contains. For an unannotated retrieval tool with auth parameters, this is a significant gap.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision, so it earns only a middling score.
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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter commentary in the description, an agent lacks key details: read-only semantics, failure behavior for unknown campaign_id, and whether the apiKey/restEndpoint parameters are caller-supplied or preconfigured. The definition is thin for a tool in a crowded sibling set.
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 campaign_id, apiKey, and restEndpoint are each documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-source, or auth-scoping context beyond that, which is the expected baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific campaign'), which is clear enough on its own. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like campaigns_list, campaigns_analytics, canvas_details, or segments_details, leaving the agent to infer boundaries from names alone.
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 tool versus campaigns_list or campaigns_analytics, and no mention of prerequisites or required identifiers beyond the schema. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.