AIGigLab MCP Server

brandos_update_profile

Update brand identity settings including name, slogan, colors, fonts, and mood to maintain consistency in visual asset generation.

Instructions

Update the user's Brand Vault settings (identity, colors, mood, fonts).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "brandos_update_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mood`	No	Overall mood or aesthetic (e.g. Professional, Playful)
`name`	Yes	The name of the brand
`colors`	No	Array of brand colors (hex codes or names)
`slogan`	No	Brand slogan or tagline
`industry`	No	Brand's industry
`fontDetails`	No	Typography style description
`negativePrompts`	No	Things to avoid in brand generations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states 'Update' implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, 11 words, efficient and front-loaded. However, it omits some parameters, slightly reducing completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks return value details, error conditions, or usage context, leaving gaps for effective tool invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed property descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning; it merely lists a subset of fields, which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it updates Brand Vault settings with verb+resource. However, it lists only some fields (identity, colors, mood, fonts) while schema includes more (slogan, industry, fontDetails, negativePrompts), causing slight incompleteness.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling brandos_get_profile exists for reading, but description does not mention it or provide any usage context.

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