Retrieve analytics for a specific send ID to measure campaign performance over a chosen number of days, returning send-level metrics for reporting and optimization.
Get analytics for a specific send ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| length | Yes | Number of days | |
| send_id | Yes | Send ID | |
| ending_at | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID | |
| 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 burden and delivers almost nothing: no statement of auth requirements despite a required apiKey parameter, no rate-limit or read-only confirmation, no indication of what metrics or time window are returned. For a tool requiring Braze REST credentials this is a significant disclosure 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool, but the shortfall is under-specification rather than verbosity.
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 six parameters, three of them required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the required campaign_id/send_id/length combination and at least sketch the analytic payload. As written it omits all of this, leaving the agent to reconstruct semantics from the schema alone.
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 83% (>80%), so the schema already documents send_id, campaign_id, length, apiKey and restEndpoint; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema – notably it never explains the required 'length' (days) window or the optional ending_at parameter.
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 specific verb+resource ('Get analytics') scoped to 'a specific send ID', which is enough to distinguish it from campaigns_analytics or canvas_analytics at a glance. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer that this is the send-scoped analytics endpoint.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics endpoints (campaigns_analytics, canvas_analytics, segments_analytics, events_analytics), nor prerequisites, nor what a 'send ID' is relative to campaign_id. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.