Search Braze dashboard users by email address using SCIM filters to retrieve matching user records.
Search for dashboard users by email address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of results to return | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key (requires SCIM permissions) | |
| filter | Yes | SCIM filter (e.g., 'userName eq "user@example.com"') | |
| startIndex | No | 1-based start index | |
| 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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no auth/permission requirements (only the apiKey schema param hints at SCIM permissions), no pagination behavior despite startIndex/count, and no note on result caps. For an unannotated tool 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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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?
With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain at least the SCIM ListResponse shape or pagination expectations; it does neither. An agent can form a call but cannot predict what comes back or how paging behaves.
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 filter, count, startIndex, apiKey, and restEndpoint — baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or format detail, and its 'by email address' gloss slightly understates the general SCIM filter semantics documented in the schema.
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 (Search) and a resource (dashboard users), which separates it loosely from scim_users_get/create/update/delete. However, the qualifier 'by email address' narrows the purpose beyond what the schema supports — the required 'filter' param takes any SCIM filter (e.g., userName eq "..."), not just email lookups. The intent is recognizable but partially misleading about scope.
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 guidance on when to use this versus scim_users_get or the other scim_users_* siblings, and no mention of prerequisites (SCIM-permissioned API key) or typical lookup scenarios. The agent must infer the search-vs-retrieve distinction from the names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.