query_hexFind the closest named archive colours to a hex value using CIEDE2000 perceptual distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Hex value with or without # e.g. '#8B4513' | |
| archive | No | Optional: restrict to a named archive | |
| n_results | No | Number of results (default 5) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "array",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "input_hex": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "nearest_colours": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "archive_source": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "colour_notes": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "hex": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "match_quality": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "nearest_ral": {
- "type": "object"
- },
- "primary_source": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "rgb_distance": {
- "type": "number"
- },
- "zone": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "input_hex": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nearest_colours": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "archive_source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "colour_notes": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hex": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "match_quality": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nearest_ral": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "primary_source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rgb_distance": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "zone": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true, the safe read behavior is already disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning the CIEDE2000 perceptual distance algorithm and 'closest', which implies ranked results. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main action, input, and method without filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required) and the description covers the core operation and algorithm. The reader understands what the tool does and how it behaves. Minor details like error handling are absent, but not essential for this read-only query tool.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (hex, archive, n_results), with 100% coverage. The tool description only reinforces 'hex' and does not add detail about 'archive' or 'n_results', so it adds no significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 action ('Find'), the resource ('named archive colours'), the input ('hex value'), and the method ('CIEDE2000 perceptual distance'). This specific combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like colour_compare or colour_match_paint, which have different purposes.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a hex value and need to map it to named archive colours. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. No prerequisites are mentioned, but none are apparent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.