Colour Memory

Resolve Brand Colour Standard Claim Detail

brand_guideline_claims

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves claim_id values (returned inline on every colour by brand_guideline_specify and brand_guideline_select) into their full claim record: source title/locator/citation, the exact permitted claim text, do_not_say restrictions, and claim_role (anchor/analogue/reject). Read-only -- reads the already-persisted, frozen brand_ref snapshot, never re-runs generation or mutates anything. Omit claim_ids to return every claim on the brand_ref. Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id, same as brand_guideline_pdf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brand_ref`	No	The brand_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify or brand_guideline_select.
`claim_ids`	No	Which claim_id values to resolve. Omit (or pass an empty list) to return every claim on the brand_ref.
`project_id`	No	Alternative to brand_ref for an authenticated (keyed) brand project. Requires the same API key that created it.
`project_version`	No	Resolve claims against this specific immutable version instead of the project's current version.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it reads a 'frozen brand_ref snapshot', never re-runs generation, and mutates nothing. This directly complements the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by explaining what 'read-only' means in practice and the immutability of the data source.

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 two sentences long but delivers a high density of useful information: purpose, return content, read-only behavior, parameter semantics, and reference to a sibling tool. No wasted words; every clause contributes.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's role, input selection rules, behavioral constraints, and relationship to sibling tools. For a read-only lookup tool with good annotations and schema, this is fully complete.

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?

While the schema already covers all parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds valuable semantic context: it explains that claim_ids are returned inline by sibling tools, that omitting claim_ids returns every claim, and that brand_ref and project_id are mutually exclusive. This meaningfully enriches the bare schema.

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 starts with 'Resolves claim_id values' and clearly specifies the resource (claim record) and the resolved fields (source, permitted claim text, do_not_say restrictions, claim_role). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing brand_guideline_specify and brand_guideline_select, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to resolve claim_ids returned inline by the specify/select tools, and how to omit claim_ids to get all claims. It also states the brand_ref/project_id constraint ('Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id, same as brand_guideline_pdf'), offering a clear usage pattern. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

A3.6/5.0

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

Need Help?