colour_slugsReturn every developer token format for a hex value: CSS variable, kebab-case, camelCase, PascalCase, Tailwind class, TypeScript const, SCSS variable. Archive-grounded name source with dE2000 distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Hex value e.g. #D4A829 | |
| archive | No | Optional archive filter |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output 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"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "error": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "ok": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "result": {
- "type": [
- "object",
- "array",
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the name source is archive-grounded and uses dE2000 distance for color matching, which helps the agent anticipate how results are produced. No contradictions with 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?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action and lists all output formats; the second provides the naming source. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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?
The description, combined with a complete input schema and the presence of an output schema, provides sufficient context for a read-only transformation tool. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., invalid hex) and prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage.
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 both hex and archive parameters are already described in the input schema. The description mentions 'hex value' and 'Archive-grounded' which loosely connects to the archive parameter, but it adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific action (return every developer token format) for a given hex value, listing concrete outputs (CSS variable, kebab-case, camelCase, PascalCase, Tailwind class, TypeScript const, SCSS variable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like colour_namer by focusing on developer token formats and mentioning archive-grounded naming with dE2000 distance.
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 usage when developers need naming conventions from a hex value, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so usage context is only implied, not explicit.
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.