Create up to 50 items in a catalog by providing IDs and optional attributes. Use this to bulk add catalog entries through Braze's REST API.
Create multiple items in a catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Items to create (max 50) | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| catalog_name | Yes | Catalog name | |
| 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 burden, yet it discloses nothing about mutation behavior: whether duplicate IDs error or upsert, whether the write is atomic across the batch, permission/API-key requirements, or rate limits. For a bulk mutation endpoint this is a substantial 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.
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 bulk write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: duplicate-ID handling, partial-failure semantics, and the 50-item cap's implications. An agent could invoke it but cannot predict its failure modes.
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 all four parameters (items, apiKey, catalog_name, restEndpoint) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of batching, matching the baseline 3 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?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Create ... items in a catalog') and the word 'multiple' implicitly separates it from the singular sibling catalog_item_create. It never names or contrasts siblings explicitly, 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?
Usage is only implied through the word 'multiple' — an agent can infer batch creation, but the description never states when to use this batch tool versus catalog_item_create / catalog_items_update / catalog_items_edit, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.