colorConvert a color (hex, rgb() or hsl()) and return hex, RGB and HSL representations at once. Use when picking or translating colors for CSS, design tokens or themes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | A color: "#3b82f6", "rgb(59,130,246)" or "hsl(217,91%,60%)". |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | ||
| hsl | Yes | ||
| rgb | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral value by stating that it returns all three representations at once, which clarifies the output shape and the fact that no side effects occur. It does not cover error behavior or edge cases, but this is acceptable given the annotations.
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: the first explains exactly what the tool does, the second gives the common use cases. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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 single-parameter conversion tool, the description covers input formats, output format, and use context. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. It could mention handling of alpha channels or invalid inputs, but these gaps are minor.
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 100%, as the 'value' parameter already includes examples of each format. The tool description repeats the accepted formats but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'convert' and resource 'a color', specifies accepted input formats (hex, rgb(), hsl()) and the output (hex, RGB, and HSL representations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unit_convert or base_convert.
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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use when picking or translating colors for CSS, design tokens or themes.' It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple conversion tool this context is sufficient.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: base64 encoding, color conversion, string counting, hashing, image format comparison, JSON formatting, JWT decoding, image optimization, QR code generation, slugification, storage capacity calculation, and UUID generation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Tool names are mostly consistent using lowercase and underscores, but they mix patterns: some are nouns (color, hash, uuid), some verbs (count, slugify), and some verb_noun pairs (jwt_decode, optimize_image). This minor inconsistency is still readable.
With 12 tools, the count is well within the ideal range. Each tool serves a specific and useful utility function, making the set well-scoped for a general-purpose developer toolkit.
The tool set covers a broad range of common web development utilities (encoding, colors, hashing, JSON, images, UUIDs). Minor gaps like URL encoding or HTML escaping are missing, but the core functionalities are well-represented.