Retrieve details for a specific Braze preference center using its external ID. Use it to fetch configuration and settings for a single preference center.
Get details for a specific preference center.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| preference_center_external_id | Yes | Preference center external ID |
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 disclosure burden. 'Get' weakly implies a read-only, idempotent operation, but there is no statement about authentication needs, error behavior when the ID is unknown, or what 'details' actually comprise.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 single-resource read with full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description never says what 'details' are returned or how failures surface, leaving a real gap.
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 apiKey, restEndpoint, and preference_center_external_id. The description only gestures at the ID parameter via 'specific preference center' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a specific preference center), and 'specific' implies a single-resource lookup rather than a list. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling preference_centers_list or preference_center_url.
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 context is given, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the name that this is the single-item retrieval counterpart to preference_centers_list, with no stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.