Colour Memory

by app.railway.up.colour-memory-api-production

Evidence Gap Analysis

archive_evidence_gap

Read-only

Given a hex value and a proposed claim about it, return whether the archive supports that claim, what is missing, what kind of source would be needed, and safe agent wording. This is Colour Memory's anti-hallucination endpoint. It turns the absence of evidence into a forensic finding rather than a gap to fill with invention. Example: hex #4A535C + proposed claim 'cyanosis in a death chamber' returns: nearest archive support, support level (supported/partial/unsupported), what source type is needed, and safe wording for the agent to use. Essential for museum, documentary, editorial, legal, and forensic workflows.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hex": "<hex>",
      "proposed_claim": "<proposed_claim>"
    },
    "name": "archive_evidence_gap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hex`	Yes	Hex colour to analyse e.g. '#4A535C'
`archive`	No	Optional archive to search e.g. 'DarkHistory'
`n_candidates`	No	Number of archive candidates to return (default 5)
`proposed_claim`	Yes	What you want to say about this colour e.g. 'cyanosis in a death chamber'

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJun 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Structured JSON response. Shape varies by tool; most return an 'ok' boolean plus a 'result' or 'results' field with the tool's data payload.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJun 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "error": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "ok": {
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "result": {
-      "type": [
-        "object",
-        "array",
-        "string",
-        "null"
-      ]
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

AddedJun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it turns absence of evidence into a forensic finding, returns support levels (supported/partial/unsupported), and provides safe agent wording. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core behavior and is about five sentences long. The example is helpful, though the output list is partly repeated between the first sentence and the example, making it slightly less concise than it could be.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, output, and target workflows. Given that an output schema exists, it does not need to enumerate return fields in detail. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and limitations, but overall provides enough context for an agent to select and use the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example ('#4A535C' + 'cyanosis in a death chamber') and explains the intent of proposed_claim, but it does not add new parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb ('return') and precisely names both inputs ('hex value' and 'proposed claim') and outputs (support decision, missing evidence, source type, safe wording). It also positions the tool as Colour Memory's anti-hallucination endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like archive_search or archive_coverage_gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states the tool is 'essential for museum, documentary, editorial, legal, and forensic workflows' and gives an example scenario. It implies use when an agent has a proposed claim about a colour and needs evidence validation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use'.

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

All Colour Memory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?