Colour Memory

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

Generate Heritage Palette from Cultural Concept

palette_concept

Read-only

Generate a historically grounded colour palette from a cultural concept or theme. Returns 4-6 coordinated archive colours with hex values, proportions, and provenance. Examples: 'Victorian mourning', 'Ottoman court', 'Japanese wabi-sabi', 'Scandinavian winter', 'West African kente', 'Renaissance Florence'. Every colour returned is sourced from the archive with documented history. The result already carries the rendered palette and its PNG, PDF, ASE, JSON and CSS downloads -- show them to the customer. Never present the archive anchors a colour was derived from as the colours you are recommending. If you go on to choose a final palette OF YOUR OWN from this evidence, call palette_finalize once with those exact colours so the customer can see and download what you actually recommended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`avoid`	No	Colours, pigments or topics to exclude e.g. ['arsenic green']. Applied before selection.
`concept`	Yes	Cultural theme or historical period e.g. 'Victorian mourning' or 'Ottoman court'
`n_colours`	No	Number of colours to return (default 5, max 8)
`include_neutrals`	No	Include neutral/background colours

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: all colours come from the archive with documented history, the result carries PNG/PDF/ASE/JSON/CSS downloads, and there is a clear warning about archive anchors. One transparency issue is that the description says 4-6 colours while the schema allows up to 8 via n_colours.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, examples, provenance, output formats, customer display, and the palette_finalize handoff. It is front-loaded with the core action and only becomes instructional later, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Given an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential workflow and handoff completely, including the critical warning about anchors and finalize routing. It is incomplete only in not reconciling the stated '4-6 colours' with the schema's n_colours max of 8 and in not distinguishing itself from closely named palette_heritage/palette_generate siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies: the description does not need to repeat parameter definitions. It adds useful example values for concept and clarifies output provenance, but it adds no real semantics for avoid, n_colours, or include_neutrals beyond the schema, and the '4-6' phrase slightly conflicts with n_colours.

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 and resource: 'Generate a historically grounded colour palette from a cultural concept or theme' and gives concrete examples that clarify scope. It also names palette_finalize as a separate downstream action, helping distinguish this evidence-generation tool from a final decision tool.

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 gives strong workflow guidance: show the rendered downloads to the customer, never present derived archive anchors as final recommendations, and call palette_finalize once if the agent assembles its own final palette. It does not explicitly contrast palette_concept with sibling generators such as palette_generate or palette_heritage, so exclusions are missing.

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

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters have unclear boundaries: colour_passport, colour_dna, colour_metrics, and colour_cultural_risk overlap heavily; palette_extract, extract_image_colours, image_palette, and ingest_image cover similar image-colour extraction territory; and compound tools like design_session, image_brief, session_brief, and archive_report_brief duplicate chains of component tools. The descriptions are detailed and occasionally state 'use this instead of X', but an agent still faces many near-duplicate choices.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and often use domain prefixes (colour_, palette_, archive_, brand_, accessibility_), but verb placement is mixed: some are verb_noun (extract_image_colours, query_hex, style_match), others are noun_verb (colour_dna, palette_generate, brand_audit), and a few standalone names (ui_states, tool_guide, meta_capabilities) don't fit either pattern. The convention is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

At 88 tools, this is far beyond the reasonable well-scoped range and exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold. Many tools are compound wrappers that consolidate chains of simpler tools, adding redundancy and cognitive load rather than genuine coverage.

Completeness5/5

For the apparent domain, the tool surface is extremely comprehensive: colour extraction, analysis, naming, accessibility, cultural/provenance research, palette generation, brand systems, interior design, ecommerce copy, image briefs, project lifecycle, exports, and diagnostic tools are all present. Persistent objects have list/get/versions/delete/export support, so there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?