Colour Memory

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

Read-only

Show a finished colour result to the customer AS COLOUR. Call this last, once the palette, house scheme, brand system or audit you are going to hand over has been decided -- it presents what you already have and chooses nothing. Do not call it for a single contrast figure, a colour history question with no palette, or tool guidance. Send the story with it: one sentence on what the scheme IS, the design decision you made, and the one rule worth remembering. The colours cannot carry those on their own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	palette, house, brand or audit.
`rooms`	No	For a multi-room scheme: one short line per room, in your own words. What that room is doing with the palette.
`title`	No	What this result is, in the customer's terms.
`bridge`	No	Where the evidence started and where you took it. Include `colours` on a side ONLY if you have real colour values for it -- an invented source swatch beside a real archive one reads as evidence and is not.
`checks`	No
`colours`	Yes	The colours you are handing over, in order.
`verdict`	No	One sentence, shown under the colour.
`key_rule`	No	The one rule worth remembering, short enough to repeat to a decorator. 'Boathouse Clay stays tiny. Never a wall.'
`design_move`	No	At most two sentences on the decision you made -- what the evidence offered and what you did with it. This is usually the most interesting thing in your answer and the part a list of colours cannot carry.
`proportions`	No	Only where a real share was decided. Every colour gets one and they total 100, or leave this out entirely -- a share nobody decided reads as a measurement nobody took.
`story_thesis`	No	ONE sentence: what this scheme IS. 'Danish coastal colour, domesticated for a summer house.' Shown above the palette, so it must earn its line.
`evidence_thread`	No	Three to five short sources or references that shaped this. Orientation, not a bibliography.
`evidence_summary`	No
`evidence_boundary`	No	What is source-backed and what is your interpretation. Say it plainly: 'Designed contemporary interpretation, not a measured historical paint specification.'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already supplied, the description goes beyond it by stating this tool 'presents what you already have and chooses nothing,' clarifying it is non-decisional presentation rather than a generative or mutating operation. It also reveals the behavioral expectation that narrative context must be included because 'the colours cannot carry those on their own.'

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but proportioned: four sentences carry purpose, usage timing, exclusions, and a mandatory narrative requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action, and no sentence is filler; even the closing metaphor explains why the story fields are required.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich input schema, the read-only annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide when to call it and what to include. It names the relevant domains, states the ordering rule, excludes the wrong use cases, and reinforces the story requirement. The remaining parameter detail is adequately handled by the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is high (86%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by mapping the required story to specific parameters: one sentence on what the scheme IS (story_thesis), the design decision (design_move), and the one rule worth remembering (key_rule). This is not just restating the schema; it tells the agent which narrative fields are essential at call time.

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 object: 'Show a finished colour result to the customer AS COLOUR.' It then clarifies this is the final presentation step for a decided palette, house scheme, brand system, or audit, and explicitly excludes single contrast figures, colour history questions without a palette, and tool guidance—so an agent can separate it from siblings like colour_compare, historical_colour_query, and tool_guide.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-call guidance ('Call this last, once the palette... has been decided'), explains what the tool does not do ('presents what you already have and chooses nothing'), and lists what it is not for. It also tells the agent to send a story with three named components, which is concrete invocation guidance.

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?