Skip to main content
Glama

Raven

by ai.ravenmcp

get_brand_principles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get brand and visual-design principles — logo usage (clear space, min sizes, variants, placement, restraint), gradient usage (hierarchy, palette, contrast, trend vs signature), imagery (consistency, representation, purpose), visual hierarchy, and brand-as-system thinking. Use when the user asks about branding, logos, gradients, imagery, visual consistency, or how to treat a brand across surfaces.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoFilter by topic: 'logo', 'gradient', 'imagery', 'hierarchy', 'system', or a freeform search term. Omit to return all brand principles.
formatNoOutput format. Default: full.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add context about the content returned (specific principle areas). However, it doesn't discuss response structure or any potential limitations. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides usage context. It is efficient with no redundant fluff, though it could be slightly shortened without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description conveys what the tool returns (principles across specified topics) and how to invoke it with the optional topic filter. The overall context is sufficient for a simple read-only retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'topic' and 'format' fully described. The description lists example topics (logo, gradient, imagery) which mirrors the schema's enumerated values, adding no new information. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get brand and visual-design principles' and enumerates specific subtopics (logo usage, gradient usage, imagery, visual hierarchy, brand-as-system). This is specific and resource-oriented. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_brand_system or get_principles, the specificity of the content makes the purpose clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use when the user asks about branding, logos, gradients, imagery, visual consistency, or how to treat a brand across surfaces.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Raven toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (audit_* vs get_* vs list_* vs generate_* vs score_*), but there is notable overlap among audit_page, audit_layout, score_page, and audit_url (all audit rendered HTML, with audit_page and score_page explicitly sharing checks; audit_screen and audit_ios_screen are aliases). The get_* family (get_pattern vs get_content_pattern vs get_service_pattern, get_principles vs get_brand_principles vs get_content_principles) have overlapping boundaries that may cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (audit_*, get_*, list_*, generate_*, score_*, compose_*, suggest_*, search_*), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: 'evaluate_design' uses evaluate_ instead of audit_/score_, and 'process' isn't present but 'compose_system' uses compose_ instead of generate_/get_. Overall the convention is strong and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and even beyond the 'heavy' 25+ threshold. The server appears to be an all-in-one design/UX knowledge base and auditing suite, but the sheer count makes discovery and selection overwhelming, and many tools (e.g., multiple audit_* variants for mobile platforms) could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide domain: audits for web/mobile/RN/SwiftUI, design tokens, UX principles, content systems, business strategy, creative scoring, and service design. However, there are gaps: no tool for creating or editing design systems (only get/generate), no update/delete operations anywhere (all read-only or audit-only), and the creative side has list/score but no generation tool. The set feels broad but shallow in lifecycle coverage.

Resources