Retrieve all content blocks in a Braze workspace, with optional filters for modified dates and pagination to handle large result sets.
List all content blocks in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 100) | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| offset | No | ||
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| modified_after | No | Filter by modified date (ISO 8601) | |
| modified_before | No | Filter by modified date (ISO 8601) |
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, yet it discloses nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, or the fact that results can be narrowed. 'List all' also obscures that the operation supports date filtering, which is the only behavioral hint available and it is absent.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it does not lose points for verbosity.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the filtering capability surfaced by the schema, the pagination model, or the return shape, leaving the agent to infer behavior from field names alone.
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 high (83%), so the schema already documents limit, modified_after, modified_before, and the auth fields; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the filter semantics, and its phrase 'all content blocks' slightly tensions with the available modified_after/before filters.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('content blocks') scoped to the workspace, so an agent can identify it as the read/list operation. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the close siblings content_blocks_info, content_blocks_create, and content_blocks_update beyond the plain verb.
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 about when to use this list operation versus content_blocks_info or the create/update siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as credentials. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.