get_brand
Get the full profile for a specific brand: categories, website, headquarters country and description.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Brand numeric ID or alias, e.g. 'deuter' or '16709'. |
brands
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only lists returned fields; lacks disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a read tool, minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loads purpose and lists return fields with no wasted words. Clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description mentions some fields but not all possible ones. For a 'full profile' tool, listing fields adds value but could be more explicit. Adequate for a simple 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% and schema already describes parameter (id_or_alias) with example values. Description does not add new parameter meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states action 'Get' and resource 'full profile for a specific brand', lists specific fields (categories, website, headquarters country, description). Distinguishes from siblings like get_brand_retailers by focusing on brand profile data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. other tools like get_brands or get_brand_retailers. Implies single brand lookup but does not provide context on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching individual brands/retailers, listing/searching them, and retrieving their cross-relationships. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a strict 'get_<entity>_<optional_relation>' pattern in snake_case, providing a predictable and consistent naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering both entities (brands and retailers) and their bidirectional relationships, the count is well-scoped for a read-focused API.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers all essential read operations: individual lookups, listing/search, and relationship queries for both brands and retailers, leaving no obvious gaps.