Retrieve Sephora's full A-Z brand directory to get exact brand names for filtering search and category results.
Sephora brand directory. Returns Sephora's full brand directory (373 brands at time of writing), sourced from the site's own A-Z brand list page. Each brand's name is the exact string GET /sephora/search and GET /sephora/category's repeatable brand filter parameter expect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral details: the data source (site's A-Z brand list page), the count (373 at time of writing, signaling freshness), and the crucial property that brand names are exact filter strings. This goes beyond a minimal statement, though it doesn't mention output format, pagination, or rate limits. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a strong disclosure.
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 no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and provenance; the second delivers the key usage detail. Information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only directory tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, its source, the approximate size, and the critical relationship between output values and other tools' parameters. It could explicitly state the return type is an array of brand objects, but the mention of 'each brand's name' makes that reasonably clear. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly without needing an output schema.
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 baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining the meaning of the `name` field in the returned data, tying it directly to filter parameters in other endpoints. This is helpful even though it doesn't describe any input parameters.
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 states a specific action ('Returns Sephora's full brand directory') and resource (the A-Z brand list page), and explicitly distinguishes it from search/category tools by emphasizing that it provides the exact brand names used in filters. This fully clarifies what the tool does and sets it apart from siblings like sephora_search and sephora_categories.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to obtain exact brand strings for the `brand` filter parameter in GET /sephora/search and GET /sephora/category. It provides strong contextual guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use this before calling those tools' or mention when not to use it. This is clear context without formal exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.