Fetch brand guidelines from the 2026 guide before generating SAMPLE-branded output. Provides colors, typography, logo, social, and strict generation rules to ensure compliant designs.
Return SAMPLE brand guidelines from the 2026 guide. Use this before generating any SAMPLE-branded output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source ('2026 guide') and intended usage, but it does not describe what the returned guidelines contain or how the response varies by section. This is adequate but not behaviorally rich beyond the annotations.
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 with the core outcome first and no filler. The second sentence adds direct usage guidance without redundancy.
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 one-optional-parameter, read-only, idempotent retrieval tool, the description plus the enum/default schema provides enough to select and invoke it. The lack of an output schema means the response format is not described, but for a brand-guidelines retrieval this is a minor gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the `section` parameter or explains how values like 'colors', 'typography', or 'all' change the returned guidelines. The enum and default in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description was expected to compensate for missing schema descriptions and does not.
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 identifies the action ('Return') and a specific resource ('SAMPLE brand guidelines from the 2026 guide'). It also positions the tool as a prerequisite for generation, which distinguishes it from the create/validate siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with a close sibling like audit_brand_assets, so it stops just short of full differentiation.
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?
'Use this before generating any SAMPLE-branded output' is explicit when-to-use guidance. The description does not list alternatives or edge cases, but for a simple read-only retrieval tool the primary usage condition is clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.