Colour Memory

Render Brand Colour Standard PDF

brand_guideline_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Renders a client-facing brand colour standard from an existing brand_ref. The document covers the direction carried forward and its assessment, the colour system in proportion, the argument for the palette, packaging and digital application, a full pairwise WCAG accessibility matrix computed upstream (never hand-drawn examples), and a provenance and evidence register in which every claim is bound to the colour it belongs to. Page count is not fixed: sections that have nothing real to say are omitted rather than padded -- a single-candidate brand_ref drops the comparison spread, and a candidate that was never scored for distinctiveness gets a different page shape rather than an empty scale. Derived colours are never presented in documented-source language. Renders the brand_guideline_select-chosen candidate if one has been recorded, otherwise the strongest eligible candidate as a provisional preview (clearly labelled as such). Reads only the already-persisted, frozen snapshot -- never re-runs brand_guideline_specify, never rematches an archive, never mutates the resolved project. Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`delivery`	No	'url' (default): signed, time-limited R2 download link. 'base64': PDF bytes returned inline.	url
`brand_ref`	No	The brand_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify or brand_guideline_select.
`project_id`	No	Alternative to brand_ref for an authenticated (keyed) brand project. Requires the same API key that created it.
`project_version`	No	Render this specific immutable version instead of the project's current version. Omit to render the 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: it reads a frozen snapshot without re-running specify, never mutates the project, omits sections that have nothing to say, and never presents derived colors as documented-source language. This goes far beyond the annotations and clarifies edge cases.

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?

Although longer than average, every sentence adds substantive detail about document contents, dynamic page count, candidate selection, or immutability. The description is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff, making the length justified.

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?

The description comprehensively covers the tool's behavior, inputs, selection logic, edge cases, and non-mutating nature. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is fine. The detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke this correctly without confusion.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The description adds critical semantic value by specifying the mutual exclusivity of brand_ref and project_id, and clarifies the meaning of project_version for the current version. This is a meaningful supplement to the 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 clearly states the tool renders a client-facing brand colour standard PDF from an existing brand_ref, with a comprehensive list of document contents. It distinguishes itself by explicitly referencing brand_guideline_select and brand_guideline_specify in context, marking it as the PDF rendering step in the brand guideline 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool and its exact input constraint ('Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id'). It also explains the candidate-selection behavior (recorded choice vs provisional preview) and explicitly states what it never does (re-runs specify, mutates project), but lacks direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like brand_report or palette_pdf.

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?