lookup_brand_programLook up one brand's public creator program: how creators apply or pitch, the program summary, what the brand sells, and the link to its BravoDM program page. Covers only the brands with public program pages at bravodm.com/brands, from the same catalog records those pages render. Pass a brand name or its BravoDM slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | Yes | Brand name (for example Caraway) or slug (caraway). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: data comes from the same catalog records the BravoDM pages render, and coverage is restricted to brands with public program pages. It could go further on failure behavior (e.g., what happens for an unlisted brand), but the read-only, public-data nature is clear.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, then input instruction. Every clause contributes something specific; no filler or repetition of the title.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema and annotations cannot: the returned fields, the source catalog, and the coverage limitation. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what to expect back.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Brand name (for example Caraway) or slug (caraway).' The description's 'Pass a brand name or its BravoDM slug' merely restates that, adding no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('one brand's public creator program'), then enumerates the exact content returned: application/pitch process, summary, product category, and program page link. The scope is narrow and unmistakable, and nothing overlaps with the sibling tools price_deal or rate_benchmarks.
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?
Explicitly states the valid population ('only the brands with public program pages at bravodm.com/brands'), which tells the agent when this tool will and will not return data, and instructs what input to pass. It doesn't name a fallback for brands outside that set, but no sibling offers an alternative lookup, so the gap is minor.
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.