Schedule an API-triggered campaign for future delivery by defining the send time and audience.
Schedule an API-triggered campaign for future delivery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| send_id | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| schedule | Yes | ||
| broadcast | No | ||
| recipients | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | API-triggered 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 implies creation of a schedule but says nothing about required auth (apiKey/endpoint), whether re-scheduling an existing campaign overwrites prior schedules, whether the campaign must already be API-triggered, or failure behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is well-structured. However, the extreme brevity leaves the complexity of an 8-parameter tool unaddressed.
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 tool with 8 params, nested objects, low schema coverage, no output schema and no annotations, one sentence is clearly insufficient. Nothing about prerequisites, side effects or required campaign state is conveyed.
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 only 38% across 8 parameters including nested audience, recipients and schedule objects, and the description adds zero parameter meaning. The undocumented params (send_id, broadcast, audience, recipients) are left entirely to the agent to guess.
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 ('Schedule'), resource ('API-triggered campaign') and scope ('for future delivery'). The 'API-triggered' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from a general campaign scheduler, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like messages_schedule_create or campaigns_schedule_update, so the differentiation is implicit.
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 statement of when to use this versus campaigns_trigger_send (immediate send) or the update/delete schedule variants. An agent must infer from the name alone that this creates a new schedule rather than modifying one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.