Keytomic

Update brand profile

update_brand_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Saves edits to a site’s brand profile, the same as editing the Profile page. Only what the edit names changes. metadata, overview (summary, strengths, weaknesses) and offerPositioning take single fields; metadata.brandColors takes all four colors. brandVoice, audienceProfile and contentGuardrails replace the whole section, so send every field of the section; get_project returns the current values. An audienceProfile edit also sets targetAudience to its primaryAudience, a brandVoice edit sets the overview tone, and an industry edit clears the industry slug so it follows the new name, as the Profile page and setup do. Competitors, the sitemap inventory, screenshots and the Domain Rating are not editable here. An edit must name at least one field. Edits do not change whether the brand profile review is complete. Spends no credits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "update_brand_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`metadata`	No	Brand facts such as brandName, mainKeyword, startingKeywords, primaryMarket and primaryCountryCode.
`overview`	No	The site summary, strengths and weaknesses, as on the Profile page.
`projectId`	Yes	Site to act on, from list_sites.
`brandVoice`	No	The whole Brand Voice.
`audienceProfile`	No	The whole audience profile.
`offerPositioning`	No	Offer Positioning fields to change.
`contentGuardrails`	No	The whole Content Guardrails section.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit by explaining exactly why: whole-section replacement for brandVoice, audienceProfile and contentGuardrails versus single-field patching elsewhere, plus the all-four-colors rule for metadata.brandColors. It goes further than annotations ever could by disclosing cascading side effects (audienceProfile sets targetAudience, brandVoice sets overview tone, industry clears the industry slug) and by confirming edits do not change review completeness.

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?

Purpose and read-first guidance are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries operational information (merge vs replace, cascades, exclusions, cost). It is a dense single paragraph, though, so the cascading side effects and the section-replacement rule are harder to scan than they would be as separate clauses or bullets.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter tool with deep nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the mutation contract, replacement semantics, side effects, rejected operations, and credit cost. The remaining omissions (auth requirements, error behavior) are minor against a definition this thorough.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 would be the floor, but the description contributes semantics the schema cannot express: the merge-versus-replace contract per top-level object and the cross-field coupling (industry clearing its slug, audienceProfile propagating primaryAudience into targetAudience). This directly changes how an agent must construct the payload, which is exactly the value parameter semantics should add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves edits to a site's brand profile') and anchors it to a familiar surface ('the same as editing the Profile page'). It also draws hard boundaries against adjacent concerns by naming what is not editable here (competitors, sitemap inventory, screenshots, Domain Rating), so an agent can separate it from update_project_settings and the read-side get_project.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes read-before-write to a named sibling ('get_project returns the current values') and states a precondition for invocation ('An edit must name at least one field'). It further clarifies scope exclusions and cost ('Spends no credits'), leaving little for the agent to infer about when this tool is the right call.

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

All Keytomic 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?