Tasvr

Save what you learned about this account's brand

update_brand_preferences

DestructiveIdempotent

Saves brand preferences (tone, styles, target states, preferred communities) that the human confirmed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_brand_preferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Anything else worth remembering, in your own words.
`toneWords`	No	e.g. ["playful","premium","minimal"].
`targetStates`	No	State names from list_ethnicity_states the brand's imagery generally draws from, e.g. ["Karnataka"]. A steer for suggestions, not a hard rule.
`preferredArtStyleIds`	No	list_presets("art-style") ids.
`preferredColourLutId`	No	A single list_presets("colour-lut") id.
`preferredEthnicityKeys`	No	Specific ethnicityKey ids (from list_presets/list_ethnicities_by_state) the human has explicitly confirmed for reuse — never invent one.
`preferredWardrobeCategories`	No	Free-text category labels (e.g. "business_formal", "streetwear").

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`saved`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which strongly implies this write replaces or overwrites existing brand preferences — but the description never confirms or explains that. An agent cannot tell from the text whether omitted fields are preserved (merge) or cleared (replace), which is exactly the ambiguity destructiveHint raises. The "human confirmed" constraint is the only behavioral context added, and it does not address the destructive profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (human confirmed) is stated inline. It is efficient, though for a destructive write tool the terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Seven optional parameters, an output schema, and a destructiveHint=true profile demand more than one sentence. The definition never explains the merge-vs-replace semantics, whether a partial call wipes previously stored preferences, or what the agent should do before overwriting — all decisions an agent must make to call this safely.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are unusually good — they reference list_presets, list_ethnicity_states, and list_ethnicities_by_state, and warn "never invent one" for ethnicity keys. The top-level description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Saves brand preferences") and enumerates the preference domains it covers (tone, styles, target states, preferred communities). An agent can distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_brand_profile. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "that the human confirmed" is real usage guidance — it implies this is a persistence step taken after human confirmation, not a speculative write. However, there is no statement of when NOT to call it, no mention of how it relates to get_brand_profile (read-modify-write cycle), and no note on whether repeated calls are expected or harmful.

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

All Tasvr tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?