Retrieve Braze Canvas performance analytics over a specified number of days, with optional step and variant breakdowns, to track engagement trends over time.
Get Canvas performance analytics over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| length | Yes | Number of days | |
| canvas_id | Yes | Canvas ID | |
| ending_at | No | ||
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| include_step_breakdown | No | ||
| include_variant_breakdown | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a time-series read via 'over time' but says nothing about required authentication (apiKey/restEndpoint), the maximum allowed length, rate limits, whether results are paginated, or what happens if the Canvas ID is invalid.
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 padding or redundancy. It is economical, though its brevity is also the source of its incompleteness rather than a sign of tight editing.
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 read tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 57% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It lacks any explanation of the step/variant breakdown options, the time-range semantics, or the response shape an agent needs to interpret results.
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 coverage is only 57%, and the description adds no parameter detail beyond the vague 'over time' hint. The three undocumented parameters (ending_at, include_step_breakdown, include_variant_breakdown) are neither explained in the schema nor in the description, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (Canvas performance analytics) and adds a temporal scope ('over time'), which distinguishes it from canvas_details and canvas_summary. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-identical campaigns_analytics or sends_analytics siblings, so it stops 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus canvas_summary, canvas_details, or campaigns_analytics, nor any mention of prerequisites such as a required Canvas ID or time window. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.