Retrieve all catalogs in a Braze workspace to review available product data. Use it to list catalogs before managing items or connecting them to campaigns.
List all catalogs in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| 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. 'List all' implies a read-only, unfiltered operation, but there is no mention of pagination, result limits, permissions required, or whether catalogs are returned in any order. For a no-annotation tool 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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is perhaps too terse given the missing behavioral context, but structurally it is clean.
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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits return shape hints, pagination behavior, and any auth context beyond the schema parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
Both parameters (apiKey, restEndpoint) already carry schema descriptions at 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about them, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (catalogs) and scope (in the workspace). This clearly separates it from catalogs_create, catalogs_delete, and catalog_items_list. It does not name any sibling explicitly, though none is close enough to require it.
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 guidance on when to use this versus catalog_items_list or catalogs_create, and no prerequisites for when listing catalogs is the right call. 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.