prompteye-mcp

Official

by PROMPTEYE-SP-Z-O-O

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Check whether a brand analysis run can be started

get_brand_analysis_availability

Read-only

Whether create_brand_analysis_run would start a new run for the project right now, and if not, why — the same check that tool runs itself, without starting anything.

Instructions

Whether create_brand_analysis_run would start a new run for the project right now, and if not, why — the same check that tool runs itself, without starting anything.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project to work on — its id from list_projects. Required on every call, so that parallel conversations never read or write each other's project.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`canRun`	Yes	Whether a new run can be started right now.
`reason`	Yes	Why a new run can or cannot be started: no_project = the project could not be reached, no_prompts = the project has no active tracked prompts yet, no_results = the active prompts have not produced tracking results yet, processing = a run is already in progress, up_to_date = the latest run already reflects the current tracking results, retry_error / retry_corrupted_response = the latest run failed and running again is allowed, ready = nothing is blocking a new run.
`usedResultCount`	Yes
`activePromptCount`	Yes
`latestTrackScoreResultTimestamp`	Yes	When the most recent tracking result of the project was taken. null = none yet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.28Oct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / projectId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The project to work on — its id from list_projects. Required on every call, so that parallel conversations never read or write each other's project.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "projectId"
+]
```

Addedv1.0.22Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully reinforces this by stating nothing gets started and that a failure reason is returned. It doesn't discuss cost, latency, or what the availability result looks like structurally, but the read-only guarantee and failure semantics are covered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core question it answers, then the failure-reason clause, then the no-side-effects guarantee. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description covers purpose, no-side-effect behavior, and the reason-on-failure case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage whose description already explains the projectId scoping rationale. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work and baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names the exact behavior: a preflight availability check equivalent to the guard inside create_brand_analysis_run, plus a reason when it fails. That distinguishes it from the sibling that actually starts the run, though it phrases the action as a noun clause rather than a direct verb+resource statement.

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?

It clearly implies when to use it — before starting a run, to learn whether one would succeed and why not — and explicitly notes it performs the same check without starting anything. It stops short of an explicit 'call this instead of create_brand_analysis_run when you only want to know', but the routing is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server