InstaDeck

Get brand kit

get_brand_kit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a brand kit by ID to reuse its logo, colors, and typography when building branded InstaDeck pitch decks.

Instructions

Returns a brand kit by id.

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": {
      "brand_kit_id": "<brand_kit_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_brand_kit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brand_kit_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes no additional behavioral context — no note on what happens for an unknown id, no auth/permission requirements, no indication of response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and there is no front-loaded scope or qualification beyond the bare operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and 'a brand kit' gives no indication of the object's contents or structure. For a retrieval tool with an undocumented parameter, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only says 'by id', which restates the parameter name without adding meaning. It does not explain where a brand_kit_id comes from (e.g., list_brand_kits), its expected format, or behavior when it is invalid.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Returns a brand kit'), so the basic operation is clear, but it adds essentially nothing beyond the name/title 'Get brand kit' other than the phrase 'by id'. It gives no differentiation from siblings such as list_brand_kits, create_brand_kit, or get_design_guide, which an agent must disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the single-kit retrieval path versus list_brand_kits for enumeration.

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