get_brandFetch one brand workspace by id from list_brands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand_id | Yes | Brand workspace id from list_brands | |
| user_goal | No | Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / user_goalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the provenance of the id; it says nothing about what a returned brand workspace contains or what happens for an unknown id.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though arguably over-compressed given there are two parameters and no return-value description.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what a brand workspace holds, but for a simple read-by-id tool with strong annotations and full parameter documentation, nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and brand_id is fully documented in the schema, so the description's mention of the id adds nothing new. The second parameter, user_goal, is never mentioned, though its schema description is self-explanatory — baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Fetch one brand workspace by id'), which is clear and distinguishes it from the plural list_brands it references. It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings like get_site_brand or describe_brand_kit, so the agent must infer which 'brand' read to use.
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?
'from list_brands' implies a workflow prerequisite (the id comes from listing brands first), which is useful. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_site_brand or describe_brand_kit for brand-related reads.
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.