List all email templates in a Braze workspace with pagination and optional modification date filters to manage messaging assets.
List all email templates 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 burden. The description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. It's purely a restatement of the obvious.
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?
Single short sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words.
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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain pagination, filtering capabilities (despite modified_after/before parameters), or what the return value contains. Missing key context an agent would need to use it effectively.
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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (limit, apiKey, restEndpoint, modified_after, modified_before). The description adds no parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (email templates) with scope (in the workspace). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like email_templates_info and email_templates_create, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 tool vs. alternatives. With siblings such as email_templates_info, content_blocks_list, and campaigns_list, there's no indication of when this is appropriate. Simply implies it's for listing templates via the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.