Skip to main content
Glama

Mako Metrics

by com.makometrics
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

set_brand_profile

Write or update one client's brand profile. Every field is optional and only what you pass is changed, so this is safe to call repeatedly to correct a website draft. Pass confirm: true when the answers are right, which is what run_may needs. Confirming needs company_name, domain, flagship_product, offer_landing_page, target_customers and both colors. Needs the May plan and an X-Mako-Key header.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo
offerNoThe standing offer, for example 20% off the variety pack.
voiceNoHow the brand sounds, in a sentence or two.
domainNoBare domain, for example acme.com.
confirmNoSet true to mark the profile ready for runs.
categoryNo
color_skyNoAccent color as hex.
known_forNoThe problem they solve.
objectiveNoThe default campaign goal for this client.
color_navyNoPrimary brand color as hex, for example #1E3A8A.
objectionsNoWhat stops people buying.
competitorsNoUp to three competitor brands May studies before writing concepts.
image_notesNoArt direction for the generated images.
price_rangeNo
website_urlNo
avoid_claimsNoClaims the creative must never make.
company_nameNo
daily_budgetNoDefault daily budget in whole dollars.
phone_numberNoOnly used by a calls campaign.
proof_pointsNoFacts the copy is allowed to claim. Nothing outside this list is used.
support_emailNo
signature_claimNoThe one thing this brand is known for.
flagship_productNoThe main thing to advertise.
popular_productsNo
target_customersNoWho buys it. One per entry.
client_account_idYesFrom list_clients.
offer_landing_pageNoWhere the ads should send people.
competitor_websitesNoOptional website per competitor, keyed by the name in competitors. Give it for a local business or a common name, so May reads the right one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitor_websites
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Optional website per competitor, keyed by the name in competitors. Give it for a local business or a common name, so May reads the right one.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / competitors / description
      Added value: +"Up to three competitor brands May studies before writing concepts."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: merge/patch semantics ('only what you pass is changed'), idempotent-safe framing, the confirm gate and exactly which fields confirming requires, plus auth requirements (May plan, X-Mako-Key header). Annotations only cover the safety profile, so this carries real extra weight.

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?

Front-loads the core action and merge semantics, then the confirm gate and prerequisites. Five dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

For a 28-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the gating logic and prerequisites well. It leaves the response behavior and the semantics of less obvious fields (notes, price_range, competitor_websites interplay) unaddressed, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 75%, and the description supplements it by explaining confirm's gating behavior and the six-plus fields required for confirmation, which the schema only marks as optional. The remaining undocumented params (notes, category, price_range, website_url, support_email) get no help, so it stops short of full compensation.

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+resource ('Write or update one client's brand profile') and scopes it to a single client. It implicitly separates itself from the read sibling get_brand_profile and the generator draft_brand_from_website by framing itself as the corrector of a website draft, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operational context: safe to call repeatedly for corrections, and pass confirm:true when answers are final because run_may depends on it. It also lists the prerequisites (May plan, X-Mako-Key header). It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to get_brand_profile for reads or draft_brand_from_website for initial drafts.

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

All Mako Metrics toolsInspect
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