Removes one or more email addresses from a Braze spam list, allowing single or batch removal of up to 50 emails to restore delivery.
Remove email addresses from the spam list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Single email to remove | ||
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| emails | No | Multiple emails to remove (max 50) | |
| 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. It says 'Remove' but does not state that this is a mutating/destructive operation, whether it requires authentication, whether removal is idempotent, or what happens if an address is not on the list.
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. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity is part of why substance is missing elsewhere rather than a virtue in itself.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and both single and batch parameter forms. The description does not explain the single-vs-batch choice, auth requirements, or any confirmation/limit behavior, so it is thin for the complexity involved.
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 the schema already documents email, emails (max 50), apiKey and restEndpoint. The description adds no syntax, format or batching guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('email addresses from the spam list'), which is better than a tautology. However, the sibling list contains several near-identical removal tools (email_bounce_remove, email_blacklist, email_blocklist, sms_invalid_phones_remove), and the description does nothing to distinguish the spam list from a blocklist or blacklist, leaving real ambiguity.
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 the adjacent suppression-list tools, nor any prerequisite note. 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.