[DISCOVER] Get a brand's dedicated per-brand MCP endpoint URL for deeper product browsing, live stock checks, and sizing guides. Use this to connect directly to a brand for richer interaction. For the brand's full profile with briefs and listings, use get_brand instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand_slug | Yes | The brand slug (e.g. "unknown-union", "clooudie") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a connection URL and describes the capabilities enabled by that endpoint (live stock, sizing guides). The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the [DISCOVER] tag hints at a non-destructive discovery action, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention potential edge cases like missing endpoints.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with a [DISCOVER] tag and a clear subject. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first defines the tool's output and value, the second contrasts with a sibling tool. No filler or redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must indicate what is returned. It does: 'MCP endpoint URL'. It also explains the practical uses of that URL. It omits potential error conditions (e.g., brand not having an endpoint) and does not specify the exact URL format, but for a single-parameter discovery tool, the provided context is largely sufficient.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'brand_slug', including an example. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's specific function: 'Get a brand's dedicated per-brand MCP endpoint URL' and enumerates its uses (deeper product browsing, live stock checks, sizing guides). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'get_brand' by pointing to the alternative for full profile briefs and listings.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to connect directly to a brand for richer interaction') and names the alternative for a different need ('For the brand's full profile with briefs and listings, use get_brand instead'). This provides clear selection guidance relative to its most relevant sibling.
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.
Several tool pairs could be confused, such as get_offers vs get_redemption_offers, get_world_eggs vs discover_egg, and the human vs agent purchase flows (initiate_purchase/confirm_purchase vs initiate_agent_purchase/confirm_agent_purchase). The descriptions are detailed and mostly disambiguating, but the presence of a retired tool (create_concierge) and multiple similarly named status/check tools add ambiguity.
The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_drops, submit_design, redeem_points, verify_world_id). Minor deviations include 'priscilla_post' (proper noun prefix) and the interchangeable use of get/check/verify for status-like tools, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.
With 44 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold that makes a surface feel heavy. Even though the platform covers many domains (commerce, affiliate, design, quests, concierge, marketing), this many tools strains discoverability and agent decision-making.
The buyer and designer flows are well covered (search → detail → purchase → download; brief → submit → status), but the brand side is incomplete. register_brand promises the ability to create briefs and product listings, yet no tools exist to create briefs or products, and there are no update/delete/refund operations for any resource, leaving registered brands at a dead end.