Skip to main content
Glama

Colour Memory

by com.colourmemory.api

Retrieve a Slow brand_guideline_specify Generation's Result

brand_guideline_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves a brand_job_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify when its race-to-complete window elapsed before generation finished. Read-only, in-process lookup -- never re-runs generation. Returns {"status": "processing"} if still running, {"status": "complete", "brand_ref": ..., "project_id": ..., "recommended_candidate_id": ..., "candidate_count": ...} once done (a compact summary -- use the returned brand_ref with brand_guideline_select/brand_guideline_pdf/brand_guideline_claims for full detail, the same pattern every other Brand Standard tool already uses), or {"status": "failed", "error_code": ..., "message": ...} if generation genuinely failed server-side. An unknown or expired brand_job_ref returns a structured BRAND_JOB_NOT_FOUND error, never a crash or empty success.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brand_job_refYesThe brand_job_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify's processing response.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it's an 'in-process lookup' that never re-runs generation, returns specific status payloads (processing/complete/failed), and handles unknown/expired refs with a structured error 'BRAND_JOB_NOT_FOUND, never a crash or empty success.' This goes beyond annotations and fully discloses side effects and failure modes.

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, but every sentence conveys necessary information: the trigger, the non-mutating nature, all possible return states, and follow-up tool references. It's longer than minimal but appropriately structured for the complexity, with no filler or redundant content.

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 and a single parameter, the description is highly complete: it explains all response variants, the error case, the relationship to brand_guideline_specify, and how to proceed with sibling tools. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role or results.

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% for the single parameter brand_job_ref, with the schema already explaining its source. The description adds context by clarifying where the ref comes from and how it's used in the polling flow. This enriches but doesn't fundamentally extend the schema, meriting above baseline.

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's specific purpose: 'Resolves a brand_job_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify when its race-to-complete window elapsed before generation finished.' It uses a specific verb (resolves) and identifies the resource (brand_job_ref). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a status lookup, not a generation or full-detail tool.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (when the race-to-complete window elapsed) and provides alternatives: 'use the returned brand_ref with brand_guideline_select/brand_guideline_pdf/brand_guideline_claims for full detail.' It also clarifies what it doesn't do ('never re-runs generation'), preventing misuse.

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