get_brandingGet the account's white-label branding (logo, favicon)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The account branding — logo_url (full logo) and favicon_url (square mark). | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The account branding — logo_url (full logo) and favicon_url (square mark).",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context by naming the returned items (logo, favicon), but it does not go beyond that into other behavioral details.
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 that conveys the essential scope and content with no filler or redundant phrasing.
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 0-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations already covering side effects, this description is fully sufficient. No missing information is needed for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with full coverage. There is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no unnecessary param information.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('account's white-label branding') plus clarifying examples ('logo, favicon'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like update_branding, remove_account_logo, and refresh_account_favicon.
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?
The description implies use for reading account branding, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention that updates belong to update_branding. For a simple 0-parameter getter, this is adequate but lacks explicit routing.
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.