Colour Memory

Complete Brand Colour Intelligence Report

brand_report

Read-only

One-call complete brand colour intelligence report. Input: hex + brand context + markets + medium + product type. Output: archive anchor, cliche contradiction, colour DNA, strategy verdict, commercial signals, market reading per market, usage rules, palette roles, ecommerce copy, memory hooks, Instagram caption, and Midjourney/Flux/DALLE agent brief. Use this instead of chaining colour_strategy + cliche_breaker + ecommerce_product_copy + memory_hooks + agent_brief separately. Two Claude calls total. One complete response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hex`	Yes	Hero hex colour e.g. '#4A2A50'
`medium`	No	Medium e.g. 'packaging', 'digital', 'interior'	general
`concept`	No	Optional concept to search for cliche contradiction e.g. 'luxury', 'eco', 'wellness'
`markets`	No	Target markets e.g. ['UK', 'France', 'Japan']
`product_type`	No	Product type for copy e.g. 'velvet cushion', 'fragrance', 'cleaning spray'
`target_model`	No	Image model for agent brief e.g. 'midjourney', 'flux', 'dalle'	midjourney
`brand_context`	No	Brand context: category, positioning, audience, channels

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context about the tool's aggregate behavior (single complete response, two Claude calls total). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context not available in the schema.

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 compact paragraph that fronts the purpose, then efficiently lists inputs and outputs, and ends with a usage directive. It is somewhat list-heavy but each element earns its place; no fluff.

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's complexity (7 params, nested object, multiple outputs) and that an output schema exists, the description fully covers the tool's role, composition, and expected behavior. It explicitly lists all output types and explains how it replaces a multi-tool chain, making the context complete.

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 parameters are well-documented structurally. The description lists key inputs (hex, brand context, markets, medium, product type) but adds little beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not introduce new semantic detail for individual parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it produces a 'complete brand colour intelligence report' with specific inputs and outputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a composite alternative to chaining multiple tools (colour_strategy, cliche_breaker, etc.), making its 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use this instead of chaining colour_strategy + cliche_breaker + ecommerce_product_copy + memory_hooks + agent_brief separately', providing a clear alternative and when-to-use. It also notes 'Two Claude calls total' to set expectations on interaction.

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?