Parse

Why AI says this about the brand

parse_why

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when the user asks why AI describes their brand a certain way, or why it recommends a rival. Returns Parse's standing insights (what is still true of the brand) and what changed in the last two weeks (Activity's change lines) as short claims. Next, on Pro: parse_evidence with a returned typed reference reads the answers behind it, and standing cards open with parse_evidence using the returned typed reference. Increase weeks for older claims.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`weeks`	No
`offset`	No
`brandSlug`	No	The brand's slug or its name. Omit it to use the workspace's own brand.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / weeks / maximum
```
Previous value: -26New value: +13
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / weeks / maximum
```
Previous value: -13New value: +26
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / weeks / maximum
```
Previous value: -26New value: +13
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / weeks / maximum
```
Previous value: -13New value: +26
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / weeks / maximum
```
Previous value: -26New value: +13
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "maximum": 10000,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / weeks

Added value: +{
+  "default": 2,
+  "maximum": 26,
+  "minimum": 2,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

AddedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses that the response is short claims split into standing vs. two-week changes, and that expanding into source answers requires a Pro plan via parse_evidence — a real access constraint not in any structured field. offset/pagination behavior is not disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the trigger, which is good, but the second sentence repeats the same point twice ('parse_evidence with a returned typed reference reads the answers behind it, and standing cards open with parse_evidence using the returned typed reference'), burning words on redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. The description still carries the routing story and the weeks knob adequately; only offset semantics and differentiation from parse_what_changed are missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 33%: brandSlug is documented in the schema itself, and 'Increase weeks for older claims' gives usable intent for weeks. offset is left unexplained in both places, and no default/max context (2–13 weeks) is referenced in the description.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific user question ('why AI describes their brand a certain way, or why it recommends a rival') and the deliverable (standing insights plus the last two weeks' change lines as short claims). It is distinguishable from parse_evidence, though it overlaps with parse_what_changed's territory (recent change lines) without acknowledging that sibling.

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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger is given, plus escalation guidance ('Next, on Pro: parse_evidence') and a knob for older data ('Increase weeks'). Missing an explicit when-NOT or a statement about how this differs from parse_what_changed, which returns adjacent recent-change data.

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

All Parse 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?