Colour Memory

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

Style Match: Does This Go With That?

style_match

Read-only

The colour question every stylist gets asked: does this bag go with this outfit? Submit your outfit items as hex values with labels (dress, bag, shoes, coat, belt, scarf, etc.) and receive a verdict on what works, what clashes, what is missing, and what to add. Pairs are judged on hue relationship and lightness contrast; each item is named from its nearest archive record, with that record's evidence grade and source. The archive documents single colours, not outfits, so it makes no claim that a combination has historical precedent. Also suggests one missing archive colour that would complete the look. Examples: 'I have a navy dress (#1C3A6E) and a tan bag (#C8A87A), what shoes?' or 'Does this burgundy coat work with olive trousers?' The result already carries the rendered palette and its PNG, PDF, ASE, JSON and CSS downloads, ready to show the customer. The archive anchors a colour was derived from are evidence, not the recommended colours. A final palette chosen from this evidence is registered with palette_finalize, called once with those exact colours, so the customer can see and download what was actually recommended.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "style_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ask`	No	Optional: specific question e.g. 'what bag colour works?' or 'do the shoes work?'
`items`	Yes	List of outfit items with label and hex colour
`occasion`	No	Optional: occasion context e.g. 'daytime', 'evening', 'office', 'casual', 'wedding guest'	general

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

Changed1 schema field changedMay 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

Changed1 schema field changedMay 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "alternatives": {
-      "description": "Alternative archive colours for problem items",
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "combinations": {
-      "description": "How each pair of items relates",
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "items_analysed": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "missing_piece": {
-      "description": "Archive colour that would complete the look",
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "outfit_summary": {
-      "description": "Plain-English summary of the colour story",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "stylist_note": {
-      "description": "The one thing to change or add",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "verdict": {
-      "description": "works / mostly works / clashes / needs work",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "what_clashes": {
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "what_works": {
-      "type": "array"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

AddedMay 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description still adds real substance: judgement is on hue relationship and lightness contrast, each item is named from its nearest archive record with evidence grade and source, and the archive makes no claim of historical precedent for combinations. It also discloses that the anchors are evidence rather than recommendations, though it never states latency or archive-coverage limits on matches.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body runs long for a three-parameter tool and repeats the archive caveat twice across two sentences. 'The archive anchors a colour was derived from are evidence' is grammatically broken, and the palette_finalize sentence is a run-on that forces re-reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be specified, but the description still flags that the result carries the rendered palette plus PNG/PDF/ASE/JSON/CSS downloads. Combined with the evidence-grade explanation and the palette_finalize handoff, an agent has what it needs to call this confidently, with only alternative-tool routing left out.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: items are hex values with item-type labels, and 'ask' is framed through example questions like 'what bag colour works?'. The occasion parameter is never mentioned in the description, leaving that one field to the schema alone.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: it answers 'does this bag go with this outfit?' and returns a verdict of what works, clashes, is missing and what to add. It also distinguishes itself from the archive's single-colour scope and points to palette_finalize as the registration step, so an agent can place it in a workflow.

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?

Two concrete example prompts ('I have a navy dress...what shoes?') make the intended invocation clear, and the palette_finalize sentence states the follow-on step. It never says when to prefer a sibling such as colour_combination or colour_compare, so the when-not guidance is absent.

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?