get_brand_profileRetrieves a brand's profile—voice, visual identity, categories, website—to guide on-brand captions. Read-only; call before writing content.
A brand's description, website, categories, voice, and visual identity as set in Markaestro. Read it before writing captions so they sound like the brand. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | Brand id from list_products |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates that, and it adds no auth, rate-limit, caching, or not-found behavior. The enumeration of returned fields is modest added value.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource contents followed by the usage trigger. 'Read-only' is redundant against the annotations and does not earn its place, but nothing else is wasted.
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 output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does via the field list. Combined with a single well-documented parameter and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior (missing id, empty profile) is absent.
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 100% (productId: 'Brand id from list_products'), so the schema already documents the sole parameter, including its provenance. The description adds nothing about productId, which is acceptable at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 names the specific resource and enumerates its contents (description, website, categories, voice, visual identity), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It is not a verb-first statement, and there is no sibling brand-profile tool to contrast against, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Read it before writing captions so they sound like the brand.' This tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.