brandsystem-mcp

Quick brand check

brand_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks text, color, font, and CSS against brand guidelines during writing, returning specific fixes for violations to maintain consistency in tight editing loops.

Instructions

Inline brand linter — call this WHILE writing content or code, the way you call a type-checker. <50ms pass/fail on any combination of text (voice/never-say/AI-isms), color (palette match with ΔE distance), font (typography match), or css (anti-pattern violations). Designed for tight loops: write a sentence, brand_check it, fix, continue. Returns specific actionable fixes per failed input. Requires brand_compile to have run first. NOT a publish-time gate — use brand_check_compliance for the single PASS/FAIL verdict before shipping. NOT for 0-100 scoring — use brand_audit_content. NOT for HTML/CSS rule violations — use brand_preflight.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`css`	No	CSS snippet to check for visual anti-pattern violations (shadows, gradients, etc.). Example: "box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.1)"
`font`	No	Font family name to check against brand typography. Example: "Helvetica"
`text`	No	Text to check for voice violations (never-say words, anchor term misuse, AI-isms). Example: "We leverage cutting-edge AI solutions"
`color`	No	Hex color to check against the brand palette. Returns nearest brand color with perceptual distance (ΔE). Example: "#3b82f6"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pass`	No
`error`	No
`flags`	No
`checked`	No
`_metadata`	Yes
`brand_palette`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.17.0Oct 25, 2026
Removedv0.13.4Jul 18, 2026

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.12.0Jul 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / brand_palette

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "hex": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "hex"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / checked

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / flags

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {
+      "fix": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "message": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "severity": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / pass
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0Jul 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "_metadata": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "next_steps": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "what_happened": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "what_happened",
+        "next_steps"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "_metadata"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.9.2May 5, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: the <50ms latency budget, the hard prerequisite that brand_compile ran first, and that failures return specific actionable fixes rather than a bare verdict. The latency and prerequisite facts are not derivable from any structured field and materially affect how an agent should call this.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the one-line identity, then behavior, then an explicit alternative-routing block. Sentences are dense but every clause carries routing or prerequisite information; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param read-only linter with a full output schema, the only gaps an agent could hit are the prerequisite and the return shape, and both are covered. Sibling disambiguation is fully handled, so the description is complete enough to call correctly on first attempt.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantic depth per input: text is checked for voice/never-say/AI-isms, color for palette match with ΔE perceptual distance, font for typography match, css for anti-pattern violations. It also makes clear the parameters are composable (any combination) rather than mutually exclusive, which the schema's flat property list does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Inline brand linter" plus a concrete verb-and-scope statement: a sub-50ms pass/fail check over any combination of text, color, font, or css. It goes further and names the three sibling tools it is NOT (brand_check_compliance, brand_audit_content, brand_preflight), so an agent can discriminate it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use is given as a workflow pattern ("call this WHILE writing content or code, the way you call a type-checker... write a sentence, brand_check it, fix, continue"), plus a stated prerequisite (brand_compile must have run first). Three explicit when-NOT clauses route the agent to the correct alternative for publish gating, 0-100 scoring, and HTML/CSS rule violations.

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

Deploy Server