[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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context (deeper product browsing, live stock checks, sizing guides) and implies a read-only discovery operation via the [DISCOVER] prefix, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. It is adequate but lacks rich behavioral detail.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second sentence provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description explains what the tool does, why to use it, and how it relates to the alternative get_brand. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional detail about return values or error handling.
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%: the only parameter 'brand_slug' is already described with examples in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without needing to compensate.
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 function with a specific verb and resource: it retrieves a brand's dedicated per-brand MCP endpoint URL. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_brand, mentioning different use cases (deeper browsing vs. full profile).
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('connect directly to a brand for richer interaction') and names the alternative ('use get_brand instead' for full profile with briefs and listings). This clearly signals the appropriate context and directs agents to the correct 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.
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear category tags. Minor potential confusion between get_current_brief vs list_briefs and get_brand vs get_brand_mcp_endpoint, but descriptions clarify intent.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, e.g., check_agent_standing, list_drops, submit_design. No mixing of conventions.
32 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a wide domain including browsing, purchasing, design submission, concierge, and marketing. Each tool serves a specific function, though some consolidation could be possible.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of browsing, purchasing, design creation, commissions, and concierge services. Minor gaps like refund handling are absent, but the core workflows are well-supported.