get_knowledge_baseRetrieve the brand's knowledge base to assess whether a prompt or competitor aligns with the company's offerings and target audience.
The description of the brand the project measures against — what the company sells and to whom. Useful for judging whether a prompt or a competitor genuinely belongs to this brand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content serves as a measurement baseline, but doesn't disclose potential absence of a brand description or dynamic behavior. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence with a clarifying dash, efficiently front-loading the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 tool, the description explains what is returned and why it's useful. It could mention whether the brand description can be empty or how to interpret it, but it's sufficient for most agent use cases.
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, and the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). With no parameters to explain, the description has nothing to add beyond the baseline of 4.
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 clearly states that the tool returns the brand description the project measures against, specifying its content (what the company sells and to whom). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account or list_prompts, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 provides a use case (judging whether a prompt or competitor belongs to the brand) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The usage context is implied rather than fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.