brandsystem-mcp

Brand status

brand_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check brand extraction progress and session readiness, then get clear next steps based on extracted colors, fonts, logos, and confidence levels.

Instructions

Check brand system progress and get next steps. Shows what has been extracted (colors, fonts, logo), confidence levels, session completion status, and what to do next. Use when resuming a previous session, checking readiness, or when the user asks 'what's the state of my brand?' If no .brand/ exists, returns a full getting-started guide with all available tools. Returns structured status data.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`status`	No
`recovery`	No
`_metadata`	Yes
`tool_sessions`	No
`getting_started`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.17.0Oct 25, 2026
Removedv0.14.1Jul 18, 2026
Addedv0.13.4Jul 18, 2026
Removedv0.12.0Jul 17, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.5.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real behavior beyond them: the full getting-started guide returned when no .brand/ exists, and the confidence/completion dimensions reported. It stops short of describing caching, cost, or size of the returned status payload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then details, then usage triggers, then the fallback. Minor waste: 'get next steps' is repeated as 'what to do next,' and 'Returns structured status data' is filler given an output schema exists.

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?

Output schema is present, so return values need no prose explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. With no parameters and a documented no-state fallback, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, state-inspection call rather than hinting at inputs that do not exist.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reports brand system progress and enumerates exactly what is surfaced (extracted colors/fonts/logo, confidence levels, session completion, next steps). An agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like brand_check, brand_report, or brand_preflight.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete triggers: resuming a previous session, checking readiness, or the user asking 'what's the state of my brand?', plus the no-.brand/ fallback case. Clear context for invocation, but no explicit exclusions telling the agent when a sibling such as brand_check is the better choice.

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

Deploy Server