LeanrIQ

Research and return a LeanrIQ brand profile. This read capability does not save to Studio.

get_brand_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Research and return a LeanrIQ brand profile. This read capability does not save to Studio.. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`seatId`	No
`brandUrl`	Yes
`seatName`	No
`brandName`	Yes
`advertiserId`	No
`forceRefresh`	No
`requestedSections`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`error`	No
`status`	Yes
`assistantSummary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / requestedSections

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 80,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 32,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedAug 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing synchronous execution, not saving to Studio, and that the returned JSON is internal application state for orchestration. It also provides response-handling constraints, such as not showing raw JSON unless explicitly requested, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is reasonably compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it repeats read-only information already in the title and annotations. Several sentences focus on response presentation rather than tool invocation, and there is a typo ('Studio..'). It is structured enough to be readable, but not every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the read-only/no-save behavior and response safety constraints, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described in prose. However, parameter semantics for requestedSections and forceRefresh are absent, and there is no guidance relating this tool to refresh_brand_profile or the leanriq alias. Overall it is adequate for a read tool but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the seven input parameters. Required fields like brandName and brandUrl are inferable from their names, but requestedSections and forceRefresh are left undefined by both the schema and the description. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Research and return a LeanrIQ brand profile.' It also clarifies this is a read capability that does not save to Studio, which distinguishes it from mutating tools. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling leanriq_get_brand_profile or from refresh_brand_profile.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The read-only/no-save phrasing implies a research use case, but it never tells an agent when to choose this tool over refresh_brand_profile or leanriq_get_brand_profile. The 'Task support: forbidden' line is cryptic and does not provide actionable selection guidance.

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

All LeanrIQ tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is dominated by deprecated aliases (leanriq_build_ad, leanriq_create_brief, etc.) that duplicate canonical tools exactly, and multiple high-level builders (build_ad, build_campaign_creative_set, leanriq_campaign_builder, launch_creative_campaign) overlap in purpose. An agent would struggle to pick the intended tool without inspecting full descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Canonical tools follow a sensible verb_noun pattern (create_campaign, get_creative, list_flights), but the large number of 'leanriq_' prefixed aliases and special names like leanriq_campaign_builder create a mixed, inconsistent surface. The presence of both build_ad and leanriq_build_ad, or get_current_seat and leanriq_current_seat, breaks any predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

87 tools is an extreme number for any MCP server, even a broad ad-platform API. The sheer volume, including many duplicate aliases, far exceeds a well-scoped set and will overwhelm agents with unnecessary choices.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: CRUD for advertisers, campaigns, flights, creatives, versions, assets, plus trafficking, QA, preview, and publishing. Minor gaps exist, such as the missing canonical create_creative_strategy (only a deprecated alias references it) and no direct update_creative, but the domain is functionally complete.

Resources

Need Help?