Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Brandfetch MCP Server

Brandfetch MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List private profiles

list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent

List available account labels, default profile, and credential method availability locally, without exposing keys, client IDs, private paths, or network data.

Instructions

Local labels, default and credential method availability only. No keys, client IDs, private paths or network.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information beyond those: it is local-only, excludes keys, client IDs and private paths, and performs no network access, which is a meaningful security disclosure for a credentials-adjacent tool.

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?

It is short and front-loads the scope constraint, but the telegraphic phrasing ('Local labels, default and credential method availability only') reads as a fragment and is ambiguous about what is a field versus what is excluded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden; it partially does by naming the exposed fields, but it never defines what an 'account' is, whether multiple accounts are returned, or the ordering/shape of results. Adequate but incomplete for a listing tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 name/title state the verb and resource, but the description itself only enumerates returned fields (labels, default flag, credential method availability) rather than saying outright that it lists configured accounts. An agent can infer the purpose, but it is never stated, and no sibling (all brand-oriented tools) is referenced for differentiation.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling tool. The agent must guess from the name alone that this is the entry point for discovering credentials/accounts.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools