agentflow-mcp

brand_context_lookup

Retrieve essential brand context for a domain, including name, description, tags, positioning, voice, and logo URL, with cached fallback when sources are unavailable.

Instructions

Retrieve company brand context (name, description, tags, positioning, brand voice/style, logo URL) for a resolved domain, from Brandfetch plus logo.dev. Serves cached data when the sources are unavailable. Resolve partial company names to a domain before calling.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "brand_context_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Resolved company domain, e.g. "havas.com"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool sources from Brandfetch plus logo.dev, and serves cached data when sources are unavailable. It could say more about return behavior or failure handling, but this is solid disclosure for a simple retrieval 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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, parameters/sources/usage-prerequisite are each given their own concise sentence.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple one-parameter read tool. It names the output fields, the source, the fallback cache behavior, and the required input format. A minor gap is the lack of any statement about what happens when no brand context exists for the domain.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing that the domain must be a resolved company domain rather than a partial name, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'string' definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('company brand context'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also specifies the source and input requirement ('resolved domain'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools by topic.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: resolve partial company names to a domain before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain-required condition provides sufficiently clear usage context.

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

Deploy Server