list_brandsReturns a brands array with each brand's category, offer and code (if any). Optionally filter by category: crypto-exchange, crypto-card, hardware-wallet, trading-tools, travel-esim, creator-tools, dining, home-design, ai-tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category filter, e.g. 'crypto-exchange' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brands | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "brands": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "benefit": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "brand": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "code": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "brand",
+ "slug",
+ "category",
+ "code",
+ "benefit",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "brands"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds that the code field is optional ('if any') and enumerates the category filter values, but does not disclose pagination, result limits, or other behavioral nuances.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the return shape and immediately provides the filter options. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 single optional parameter with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks a brief note on how 'all brands' relates to 'verified codes' and whether results are paginated, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema describes the category parameter with only an example, while the description explicitly lists all nine valid category values. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, even though schema coverage is 100%.
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 states the tool returns a brands array with category, offer, and code, and identifies the optional category filter. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools get_code and search_codes, though the resource emphasized is brands rather than individual codes.
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?
The usage is implied: list all brands, optionally filtered by category. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_brands over get_code or search_codes, nor any exclusions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The three tools serve distinct lookup modes: direct brand lookup, structured category browsing, and free-text search. There is minor overlap because list_brands and search_codes both return code information, but their intended use cases are clear enough to avoid major misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_code, list_brands, search_codes. This makes the tool set predictable and easy for an agent to reason about.
Three tools is well-scoped for a read-only verified-codes lookup service. Each tool covers a distinct access path—single record, list by category, and full-text search—without unnecessary duplication.
The domain is retrieving verified discount/code information, and the tool set covers direct retrieval, browsing by category, and free-text discovery. Since this appears to be a read-only data source, no create/update/delete operations are expected, so there are no obvious dead ends.