Fetch all preference centers in a Braze workspace to view available subscription and communication preferences. Use limit and offset to paginate results.
List all preference centers in the workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| offset | 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 full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is a list operation, but does not mention whether results are paginated, whether any authentication (apiKey) is required, or what the response format is. For a read/list tool without annotations, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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 list tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 75% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It should at least mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or the workspace-scoping constraint to be sufficient for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 75%, with limit, apiKey, and restEndpoint documented in the schema; offset is undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'List all preference centers in the workspace.' It distinguishes from preference_center_get (singular 'all' vs presumably one), but does not explicitly name the sibling or clarify that it is scoped to the workspace's preference centers. This is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus preference_center_get or preference_center_url. It implies use for listing all centers, but offers no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.