list_brandsList tracked brands to view metadata and active-prompt counts, providing brand IDs needed for other tracking operations.
List tracked brands with metadata and active-prompt counts. Example: call before other tools when you need a brand_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hint | No | ||
| brands | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.19Output schema / properties / brands / items / properties / aliasesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / brands / items / properties / exclude_termsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+}Output schema / properties / brands / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "brand_id",
- "name",
- "domain",
- "category",
- "competitors",
- "refresh_frequency",
- "active_prompts",
- "created_at"
-]New value: +[
+ "brand_id",
+ "name",
+ "domain",
+ "category",
+ "competitors",
+ "aliases",
+ "exclude_terms",
+ "refresh_frequency",
+ "active_prompts",
+ "created_at"
+]v0.3.4Output schema / properties / brands / items / properties / category / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / brands / items / properties / category / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds context about the return content (metadata, active-prompt counts) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. This meets the baseline for annotation-covered tools but does not go beyond it.
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 sentences with zero waste. The primary action and return content are front-loaded, followed by a practical usage example. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise definition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, when to use it, and why it matters (getting a brand_id). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist, and it appropriately focuses on output and usage instead.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('tracked brands'), and adds specificity with 'metadata and active-prompt counts'. It gives an example usage, which implies differentiation from sibling tools that operate on a single brand, though it does not explicitly name a sibling. This is clear but stops short of the explicit contrast seen in top-tier definitions.
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 includes a direct usage instruction: 'call before other tools when you need a brand_id.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it. The guidance is helpful and context-rich, but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.