Retrieve custom event analytics over time to track user actions, with configurable length and time unit for Braze reporting.
Get custom event analytics over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| event | Yes | Event name | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| app_id | No | ||
| length | Yes | Number of days | |
| ending_at | No | ||
| 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, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirement (despite apiKey/restEndpoint params), no rate limits, no return shape, no note on how 'length' plus 'unit' interact with 'ending_at'. One sentence of pure restatement is all that is offered for a 7-parameter analytics call.
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, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so the sentence earns its place but is not enough.
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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin: no pagination, response structure, auth, or default behavior for 'unit'/'ending_at' is given. The agent has no way to know what result to expect.
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 only 57%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning: 'event', 'length' ('Number of days'), 'unit' enum values, and 'ending_at' are entirely undocumented in prose. 'Over time' loosely gestures at unit/length but supplies no format or interaction rules.
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 verb (Get) and resource (custom event analytics) with the temporal qualifier 'over time'. It is distinguishable from events_list (which lists events) and from kpi_* tools, but it never names a sibling or scopes what 'over time' means, leaving the boundary with siblings like sessions_analytics fuzzy.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent choosing among events_list, events_analytics, and the kpi_* tools gets no routing help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.