Export Braze user profiles by external_id, user_alias, or braze_id, and select specific fields to return for each profile.
Export user profiles by identifier (external_id, user_alias, or braze_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| braze_ids | No | ||
| external_ids | No | External IDs to export | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| user_aliases | No | ||
| fields_to_export | No | Specific fields to return |
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. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether exports are asynchronous/job-based, pagination or rate limits, permission requirements, or how results are delivered. For a 6-parameter data-export tool this is a substantial 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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Appropriately sized for what it attempts to convey.
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?
Six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 67% schema coverage. The description omits authentication context, export delivery semantics, and any constraint on combining identifier types, leaving an agent under-informed for anything beyond the simplest call.
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 67%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description usefully maps its three named identifier types onto external_ids, user_aliases and braze_ids, but adds nothing about fields_to_export, apiKey, restEndpoint, or whether identifiers can be mixed.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Export user profiles', with the identifier types named. It distinguishes this from sibling exporters like users_export_segment or users_export_control_group by scoping to identifier-based lookup, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that this is a Braze API call requiring apiKey/restEndpoint), and no routing against the closely-named export siblings. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.