Generate a preference center URL for a specific user to manage their communication preferences.
Generate a preference center URL for a specific user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| user_id | Yes | User external ID | |
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether the URL is persistent, whether it requires a preference center to already exist, what the response contains, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though minimal.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters requiring two identifiers, the description is too sparse. It omits key details like required permissions, dependency on a preference center, and expected return shape.
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 input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; 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?
Specific verb (Generate) and resource (preference center URL), clearly differentiated from siblings like preference_centers_list or preference_center_get. Minor ambiguity about whether it creates a URL or merely computes it, but the core purpose is clear.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus related preference center tools (create, update, get, list). The description does not mention prerequisites such as an existing preference center, nor does it exclude any scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.