Skip to main content
Glama
hermoso-ai

Hermoso

Official
by hermoso-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Draft brand profile

draft_brand

Turn a website, description, or social handle into a structured brand profile with name, products, and logo for ad planning. Confirm the returned identity matches the intended brand before use.

Instructions

Onboard a brand profile — from a website domain, a free-text description, or a social handle — into a {name, products, logo, …} object you can pass to plan_ad / generate. 0 credits. IMPORTANT: a domain can resolve to a DIFFERENT company than intended (e.g. bala.com is an engineering firm, not the Bala fitness brand at shopbala.com). Before spending any credits on research or renders, VERIFY the returned name (and summary) match the brand the user meant; if it looks wrong, re-draft with the correct domain or a description (pass save:false until confirmed) — this tool cannot ask the user, so the caller owns that check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNosave as the workspace’s brand (like Studio onboarding) so plan_ad/create use it automatically. Default: saves only when NO brand is saved yet; pass true to overwrite, false to never save
domainNoa website to scrape
platformNoplatform for socialHandle (instagram/tiktok/…)
descriptionNoa free-text brand description (no website)
socialHandleNoa social handle to draft from (influencers/creators) — pair with platform

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.161
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "category": {
-      "description": "the detected category",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "domain": {
-      "description": "the brand website domain (empty for non-website drafts)",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "logo": {
-      "description": "the detected logo URL",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "name": {
-      "description": "the drafted brand name — VERIFY it matches the brand the user meant",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "palette": {
-      "description": "the brand colors",
-      "items": {},
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "productImages": {
-      "description": "product photo URLs",
-      "items": {},
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "products": {
-      "description": "the detected products"
-    },
-    "sells": {
-      "description": "what the brand sells"
-    },
-    "summary": {
-      "description": "a short positioning summary",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: it costs 0 credits, a domain can resolve to a different company, the tool cannot ask the user for clarification, and the caller owns the verification check. This materially changes how an agent should invoke and validate the tool.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then cost, then a clearly marked IMPORTANT warning with an example and an actionable rule. It avoids repeating schema details and is structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, it covers the returned object shape ({name, products, logo, …}), the fields to verify, and the save behavior. It could be more explicit that exactly one input source is expected, but the alternatives are clearly stated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra semantic guidance: it maps the three input modes to parameters, warns about domain ambiguity with a concrete example, and explicitly recommends save:false until the result is confirmed. That goes beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('onboard') and resource ('brand profile'), lists three input sources, and names the downstream consumers (plan_ad / generate). It is clearly distinct from generic brand management tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling create_brand/update_brand.

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 states when to use the tool: to turn a domain, description, or social handle into a reusable brand object. It also gives strong operational guidance—verify the returned name, re-draft if wrong, and pass save:false until confirmed—but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools