Export users in the Global Control Group to zip or gzip files, selecting specific fields and an optional callback endpoint for delivery.
Export users in the Global Control Group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Braze REST API key | |
| restEndpoint | No | Braze REST endpoint URL | |
| output_format | No | ||
| fields_to_export | No | ||
| callback_endpoint | No |
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 full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, how the export is delivered, or what side effects exist. It only states what is exported.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff, but it is arguably too sparse for the tool's complexity. The structure is clean, though the content is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and an async-export-like design with callback and output format options. The description fails to explain return values, delivery behavior, authentication, or any operational context needed to invoke 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?
With 5 parameters and only 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify output_format, fields_to_export, callback_endpoint, or the authentication parameters.
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 (Export) and resource (users in the Global Control Group), which distinguishes it from the broader users_export and users_export_segment siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope itself provides clear differentiation.
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 users_export or users_export_segment, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context conditions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.