search_brandsFind brands in the WikiBrand catalogue by name or domain, optionally within a category. Returns each brand's domain, name, category and signature color.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Part of a brand name or domain, e.g. "stripe". Empty lists everything. | |
| category | No | One category, e.g. "Finance", "Software", "Retail". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | How many brands matched. | |
| brands | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "brands": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "board": {
+ "description": "The brand's page on WikiBrand.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "brand": {
+ "description": "Signature color, hex.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "category": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "domain"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "count": {
+ "description": "How many brands matched.",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "brands"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no result caps, pagination, or ranking/ordering behavior — which is a noticeable omission for a search endpoint but not a contradiction.
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?
Two tight sentences with the search scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence enumerating returned fields is mildly redundant given the output schema exists, but it costs almost nothing.
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?
With an output schema present, the return-value sentence is optional rather than necessary, and annotations plus full schema coverage mean the agent has what it needs to call the tool. The one real gap is the absence of any routing cue relative to get_brand.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query, category) are already documented including the 'empty lists everything' behavior. The description restates the same matching semantics (name or domain, one category) without adding format or syntax detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (find brands) plus matching scope (by name or domain, optionally within a category) and the catalogue it searches. The plural 'brands' and the search-by-partial-match framing implicitly separate it from the singular get_brand, but the sibling is never named, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery/search path while get_brand is the single-item lookup, but the description never says when to choose one over the other or notes the (0 required params) default of listing everything. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.
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.