WikiBrand

Get a brand

get_brand

Read-onlyIdempotent

A brand's identity as its own website shows it: logo (SVG or image URL, with the ground it sits on), colors (signature, page, ink, palette), typefaces, tone of voice, and its full theme as CSS custom properties. Works for any website: one nobody has read yet is read on the spot (about a minute). Use it to build anything on-brand.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The brand's website, e.g. "stripe.com".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	The page that was read.
`logo`	No	SVG markup or image URL, with the ground it sits on.
`name`	No
`board`	No	The brand's page on WikiBrand.
`voice`	No	Tone of voice traits, each between two poles.
`colors`	No	brand (signature), page, ink and palette, as hex.
`domain`	Yes
`category`	No
`variables`	No	The full theme as CSS custom properties.
`typography`	No	display and text typefaces.
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "board": {
+      "description": "The brand's page on WikiBrand.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "category": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "colors": {
+      "description": "brand (signature), page, ink and palette, as hex.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "logo": {
+      "description": "SVG markup or image URL, with the ground it sits on.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "typography": {
+      "description": "display and text typefaces.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "The page that was read.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "variables": {
+      "description": "The full theme as CSS custom properties.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "voice": {
+      "description": "Tone of voice traits, each between two poles.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domain"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: unknown sites are fetched on the spot with roughly a minute of latency, implying previously seen brands are served faster. That latency/caching disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences with no filler, and the payload enumeration leads. The phrasing 'as its own website shows it' is slightly ornate but does real work by signaling the values are scraped from the live site rather than curated.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out, and the latency and any-site behavior are covered. The one remaining gap is routing between this tool and search_brands, which an agent must guess.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents itself with the 'stripe.com' example, which the description does not extend or constrain. With one fully documented param, the baseline of 3 is appropriate — the description adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail.

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 description names a specific resource (a brand's identity) and enumerates the concrete payload — logo, colors, typefaces, tone of voice, theme as CSS custom properties — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast with its sibling search_brands, so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use it to build anything on-brand' gives a positive use case, and 'Works for any website' implies broad applicability. However, there is no when-not guidance and no mention of search_brands as the alternative for finding a brand when the domain is unknown.

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

All WikiBrand 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?