Lists saved brand kits so you can retrieve a kit's ID and use it as the brandKitId for render_carousel, producing branded output in one call.
List saved brand kits (palette, font pairing, logo, handle). Use a kit's id as render_carousel's brandKitId for one-call branded output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing what a returned kit contains and how its id feeds render_carousel, though it says nothing about ordering or result counts.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the actionable integration hint. No filler or restatement of the title.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the four kit components, plus it closes the loop with the render_carousel consumer. Minor gaps remain (no indication of whether kits can be empty, ordered, or how many are returned), but nothing blocking.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The only id mentioned (brandKitId) belongs to render_carousel, not this schema, so there is no parameter meaning left unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (saved brand kits) and enumerates the contents of each kit (palette, font pairing, logo, handle), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_brand_voices and list_carousel_styles. An agent knows exactly what it will get back.
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 second sentence gives concrete downstream usage: take a kit's id and pass it as render_carousel's brandKitId for one-call branded output, effectively naming the follow-on tool. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_brand_voices instead), but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.