Colour Memory

Generate an Archive-Grounded Brand Colour Standard

brand_guideline_specify

Read-only

Generates the case for a brand's colours, not just the colours themselves: three genuinely different, archive-grounded candidate palettes from a brand brief, each scored for distinctiveness against named competitors, checked for accessibility, and labelled with exactly what each colour can and cannot legitimately claim (documented archive anchor vs analogue vs original brand colour). Returns a brand_ref (valid 24h) plus a claim_id per colour -- resolve those into full source/permitted-claim/do_not_say text with brand_guideline_claims (the response's own claim_detail_available_via field always names it explicitly). Follow with brand_guideline_select to record which candidate was chosen. CREATE ONCE, THEN VERSION: the response returns project_id and current_version. When you refine or update a Brand Standard you already created in this conversation, pass that project_id back as continue_project_id rather than creating a second project. TIMING (2026-08-07): real generation cost ranges roughly 60-280 seconds depending on retrieval/generation path. This call races generation against a safe ~55s window: a fast generation returns the full result exactly as described above, unchanged. A slower generation instead returns a compact {"status": "processing", "brand_job_ref": ..., "poll_after_seconds": ...} -- generation keeps running server-side regardless, and is never lost. Call brand_guideline_status with that brand_job_ref to retrieve the completed result (brand_ref, project_id, candidate summary) once ready; poll no more often than poll_after_seconds suggests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brand_name`	Yes	The brand's name.
`brand_brief`	No	Category, positioning, audience, personality, values, channels, markets, and named competitors with their hex colours.
`constraints`	No	Structured negative/positive retrieval constraints, checked before archive-diversity capping. avoid_concepts takes precedence over any sentiment inferred from brand_brief prose.
`preferences`	No
`palette_input`	Yes	Exactly how to source the candidate colours.
`identity_assets`	No
`output_preferences`	No
`continue_project_id`	No	The project_id returned by an earlier call, when this is a REFINEMENT of that same Brand Standard. Reuse it and the work joins that project as a new version; omit it and a second project is created. 'Make it warmer', 'change the secondary', 'render the PDF again' and 'show another option' are all continuations. Start a new project only when the customer asks for a genuinely separate brand.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: the description explicitly describes mutating state ('CREATE ONCE, THEN VERSION', 'pass that project_id back... rather than creating a second project', 'a second project is created') while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. The description does add useful async/timing context, but the direct contradiction with the read-only hint forces a score of 1 per the rubric.

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 long but each segment earns its place: core purpose, downstream routing to claims/select/status, versioning rule, and timing/polling behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses structural cues like 'CREATE ONCE, THEN VERSION' and 'TIMING' to make the length navigable. It loses one point for the dense opening sentence.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and asynchronous behavior, the description is nearly complete: it covers the deliverable, follow-up tools, project versioning, both fast and slow response shapes, and polling instructions. Minor omissions such as error conditions and permissions are not critical given the output schema and surrounding context.

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?

With schema description coverage at 63%, the input schema documents most parameters in detail, including constraints, preferences, palette_input, identity_assets, and continue_project_id. The tool description adds useful continuation semantics for continue_project_id and ties the behavior to the brand brief, but it does not meaningfully explain the remaining parameters beyond 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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Generates'), resource ('brand colour standard'), and the concrete deliverable: three archive-grounded candidate palettes scored for distinctiveness, accessibility, and claim labels. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming brand_guideline_claims, brand_guideline_select, and brand_guideline_status.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: follow with brand_guideline_select, resolve claim_ids with brand_guideline_claims, and poll brand_guideline_status if a processing response is returned. It also explains create-once/version semantics via continue_project_id. It stops short of a 5 because it does not provide explicit 'use X instead' exclusions against the many sibling palette/brand 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 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?