Retrieve a user's subscription group statuses by email, phone, or external ID to verify opt-in preferences and channel consent.
List all subscription groups for a specific user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | User's email | ||
| limit | No | Max results | |
| phone | No | User's phone number | |
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| offset | No | ||
| external_id | No | User's external 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 must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, and whether the operation is safe/idempotent.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to other gaps.
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 tool with no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify that at least one user identifier (email, phone, or external_id) is likely required, nor does it explain pagination or return structure.
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 high (86%), so the schema documents most parameters. The description only implies a user identifier is needed and adds no syntax, constraints, or guidance on limit/offset or restEndpoint/apiKey.
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 (List), resource (subscription groups), and scope (specific user), so the action is understandable. It does not differentiate itself from subscription_status_get or other subscription siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.
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?
Gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. The phrase 'for a specific user' hints at user scoping but does not say which identifier to use or when to prefer this over subscription_status_get.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.