postnitro_get_brandFetch a single brand kit by ID, including its display settings (showName, showHandle, showImage, isCompanyDetail).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brandId | Yes | The brand ID (get from postnitro_list_brands) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | Yes | A brand kit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description's 'Fetch' action aligns with these annotations and adds no contradictory or extra behavioral context, so a baseline score is appropriate.
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 description is a single, focused sentence that starts with the main verb 'Fetch'. It efficiently lists the display settings without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.
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 simple single-resource fetch, the description is complete: it states what is fetched (brand kit with display settings) and how to identify it (by ID). No additional context is needed for this tool's scope.
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?
The schema description for brandId is present, giving 100% coverage. The description adds a helpful cross-reference to postnitro_list_brands for obtaining the ID, which is extra value beyond the schema, so a score above baseline is warranted.
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 clearly states the action (Fetch), the resource (brand kit), and the scope (by ID). It distinguishes from list_brands (fetch all) and update_brand (modify) by specifying a single brand and listing the display settings included.
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?
The description implies usage when you have a specific brandId, and the parameter description cross-references postnitro_list_brands for obtaining the ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the ID requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by verb and noun (generate_carousel vs generate_image vs generate_video, import_* vs generate_*). The generic convenience names like generate_and_wait and import_and_wait are slightly ambiguous, but their descriptions and the _wait/_schedule suffixes make them distinguishable.
All tools share the postnitro_ prefix and snake_case verb-first convention. A few compound names (generate_and_schedule, import_and_wait) break the strict verb_noun pattern, but the convention is otherwise consistent and predictable.
With 35 tools, the surface exceeds the rubric's 25+ 'too many' threshold. Many entries are convenience wrappers (_wait, _and_schedule) around the same core operations and could be consolidated to reduce overload.
The domain is well covered: generation, import, output retrieval, scheduling, brands, social accounts, audio, templates, presets, and defaults. Minor gaps remain (no delete_brand, no upload/connect for audio/social accounts), but those are largely external or non-critical.