Skip to main content
Glama

Colour Memory

by com.colourmemory.api

Archive Report Brief

archive_report_brief
Read-only

One-call complete archive research package for a document, PDF, or editorial brief. Input: title, audience, themes, archives to draw from, things to avoid, number of colours. Output: ranked colour cards with full provenance, story order, source confidence flags, pull quote, CTA line, CSS tokens, image prompt for Midjourney/Flux/DALLE, editorial argument, weakest and strongest entries identified. Replaces chaining archive_search + get_colour_card + cliche_breaker + agent_brief separately. Two Claude calls total. This is the endpoint for building premium archive documents, PDFs, briefs, and editorial content. Use this first for any document workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
avoidNoTopics to suppress e.g. ['arsenic wallpaper', 'Wedgwood blue']
titleNoDocument title e.g. 'The Colours of Georgian Power'
themesYesResearch themes e.g. ['racing silks', 'EIC trade', 'Keats']
archivesNoArchives to search e.g. ['RacingSilks', 'EIC', 'Keats', 'Dickens']
audienceNoTarget audience e.g. 'serious Georgian collector'
n_coloursNoNumber of colours to return (default 8, max 16)
period_endNoHard period gate: exclude entries dated after this year. Default 9999 (no upper bound).
period_startNoHard period gate: exclude entries dated before this year. Default 0 (no lower bound).
allow_partialNoIf false (default), returning fewer cards than requested sets ok=false with error_code INSUFFICIENT_PALETTE_RESULTS instead of a silent short 'success'. Set true to accept a short result.
output_formatNoReserved for future use -- currently accepted but has no effect on the response shape (the endpoint always returns the full report).
strict_sourcesNoOnly return entries with named primary sources (default true)
family_card_modeNoHow near-identical cultivars/records are presented. 'auto' (default): current behaviour, groups into family cards above the standard ΔE threshold. 'always': widens the clustering threshold so more near-duplicates group into family cards. 'conservative': suppresses family cards over max_family_card_share of the deck, instead promoting one hero cultivar per suppressed family with the rest folded into that card's also_supported_by list (never dissolved back into separate near-duplicate swatches).
confidence_thresholdNoMinimum confidence score (0.0-1.0) for an entry to be included. Default 0.5 filters out weakly-matched stubs.
max_family_card_shareNoConservative mode only: maximum fraction (0.0-1.0, default 0.5) of presented cards that may be family cards before excess families are suppressed to hero cards. Ignored in auto/always modes.
minimum_claim_strengthNoHard evidence-grade floor: A, B, C, D, or E. Never silently relaxed.
strict_semantic_colourNoDefault false. When true, excludes entries whose quoted colour language contradicts their stored hex (e.g. a record naming 'Prussian blue' whose hex is actually a pale cream) rather than presenting them as normal evidence. Never alters hex values, only excludes flagged ones.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds extra behavioral context: 'Two Claude calls total' (resource cost), and the output package details (ranked cards, provenance, flags). It also positions the tool as 'the endpoint for building premium archive documents.' No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core value ('One-call complete archive research package') and every sentence earns its place: inputs, outputs, replacement guidance, call count, and use case. Slightly longer than the ideal two-sentence example but efficient.

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?

For a complex tool with 16 parameters and an output schema, the description gives a clear overall picture: what it produces, when to use it, and how it compares to alternatives. It doesn't need to explain return values since an output schema exists. Minor gap: no mention of when NOT to use it (e.g., simple single-colour queries), but the replacement guidance implies that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists input categories (title, audience, themes, archives, avoid, colours) but doesn't add syntax or detailed semantics beyond the schema. It offers high-level organization but no extra parameter-specific insight.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'One-call complete archive research package for a document, PDF, or editorial brief.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the tools it replaces ('Replaces chaining archive_search + get_colour_card + cliche_breaker + agent_brief separately').

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?

Explicit when-to-use and alternative guidance: 'Use this first for any document workflow' and 'Replaces chaining archive_search + get_colour_card + cliche_breaker + agent_brief separately.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over chaining simpler tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Colour Memory toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters perform near-identical functions: extract_image_colours, image_palette and palette_extract all extract dominant colours from images; colour_passport, colour_dna, colour_metrics and colour_cultural_risk all profile a single hex; and at least six compound 'complete package' tools (agent_brief, archive_report_brief, brand_report, design_session, image_brief, session_brief) overlap heavily in scope. The descriptions try to differentiate -- some even point to tool_guide for routing -- but the volume and similarity of clusters makes misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a clear domain_prefix_suffix pattern (colour_, palette_, archive_, brand_, accessibility_, project_) and within families naming is very disciplined (brand_guideline_specify/select/pdf/claims/status, project_get/list/versions/delete). However, a handful of outliers invert the order (extract_image_colours, ingest_image, render_colour_result, query_hex) and some descriptions reference tools that don't exist as endpoints (palette_from_concept, match_paint_system, get_colour_metrics).

Tool Count1/5

88 tools is far beyond any reasonable single-server surface, even for a platform spanning archives, branding, interiors and accessibility. The sheer number forces agents into a massive decision space, and many tools exist purely as convenience wrappers that replace chains of 3-6 other tools, suggesting aggressive consolidation was needed.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers an unusually broad domain -- archive search, colour science, palettes, branding, interiors, accessibility, image extraction, projects, and PDF/Word/Excel exports -- with very few dead ends for end-user workflows. Minor gaps: several compound-tool descriptions reference tools that no longer exist, and valid archive names are only discoverable via error messages rather than a dedicated listing endpoint.

Resources