Create a new dashboard user account with SCIM provisioning in Braze. Assign permissions and manage user access.
Create a new dashboard user account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key (requires SCIM permissions) | |
| userName | Yes | Email address for the new user | |
| givenName | Yes | First name | |
| department | No | Department | |
| familyName | Yes | Last name | |
| permissions | No | User permissions | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it discloses nothing about required SCIM-scoped auth, duplicate-userName handling, reversibility, or side effects on existing permissions. 'Create a new' only minimally implies a write operation.
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 waste. It is well-structured but so terse that the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient 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 7-parameter mutation with a nested permissions object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. It omits the dashboard-vs-end-user distinction, permission semantics, auth requirements, and error/duplicate behavior an agent needs to call it correctly.
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% and every parameter (userName, givenName, familyName, department, permissions, apiKey, restEndpoint) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Create') and resource ('dashboard user account'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling scim_users_search/get/update/delete or clarify that this is a SCIM-provisioned dashboard user rather than an end-user profile (users_identify/users_track).
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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like scim_users_search or the users_identify/users_track family. No prerequisites, no mention of SCIM provisioning context, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.