get_operation_schemaRetrieve the pinned path, query, and body schema plus documented response statuses for one of 11 supported Brandfetch operations before calling the API.
Complete pinned Brandfetch path/query/body schema and documented response statuses for one of 11 supported native operations. Local only; agent purchases excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real context: the schema is version-pinned, resolution is local-only, and agent purchases are explicitly out of scope — useful for an agent budgeting cost and side effects.
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 sentences, densely front-loaded with what is returned before the scoping caveat. No filler, though the clipped 'Local only; agent purchases excluded' fragment is slightly telegraphic.
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 is the only place to learn what comes back, and 'schema and documented response statuses' is a fair start. It stops short of describing the returned structure or how to apply it before invoking preview_operation, and the enum values remain unexplained.
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% for the single required 'operation' parameter, so the description must carry that burden. It only corroborates the enum size ('one of 11 supported native operations') and adds nothing about what the individual operation values mean or how they map to the sibling tools.
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 states a specific resource — the pinned Brandfetch path/query/body schema plus documented response statuses — for one of 11 native operations, which is concrete and distinguishable from the execution-oriented siblings. It differentiates only implicitly, via 'agent purchases excluded', rather than naming preview_operation directly.
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?
'Local only; agent purchases excluded' implies this is the no-cost inspection path versus actually invoking an operation, but it never names preview_operation or states 'call this before running an operation to learn its inputs.' Usage is implied, not prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.