branding.get_paletteRetrieve one saved private color palette from the selected project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| palette_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructeveHint all set appropriately. The description adds context that the palette is 'saved' and 'privaate' and scoped to a project, which is useful but does not describe details like missing-resource behavior or permission requirements. The annotation coverage keeps the burder lower.
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?
One clean sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('one', 'saved', 'privaate', 'selected project') adds meaningful scope and contributes to the overall clarity.
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 simple read-only fetch tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and only two params, the description covers the core operation well. It could mention that project_d is nullable by default or explicitly point to list_palettes for discovery, but those are minor gaps given the schema and sibling tool context.
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 coverade is 0%, so the description needs to add meaning for palette_d and project_d. It only refers to 'the selected project' and 'one saved private color palette,' leaving the role and relation of both parameters largely implicit. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not truly compensate for missing schema descriptions.
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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly names the resource: 'one saved private color palette' from 'the selected project.' This distinguishes it from branding.list_palettes (retrieving many) and branding.generate_palette (creating a new palette).
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 description implies this tool is for fetching a single existing palette rather than listing or generating one, but it does not explicitly state when to use list_palettes to discover palette IDs or generate_palette for new palettes. Usage context is present but relies on inference.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.