colour_cardLook up a named colour and return its hex, archive, provenance, and cultural notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Colour name e.g. 'Prussian Blue' or 'Ottoman Carbon Ink' | |
| slug | No | Stable colour slug from archive_search e.g. 'keats:keats-s-lung' -- preferred over name for reliable retrieval |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured JSON response. Shape varies by tool; most return an 'ok' boolean plus a 'result' or 'results' field with the tool's data payload.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "error": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "ok": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "result": {
- "type": [
- "object",
- "array",
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds what data is returned (hex, archive, provenance, cultural notes) but does not mention potential errors (e.g., colour not found), rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It provides some additional context beyond annotations but not enough for a higher score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the action ('look up') and immediately states the return fields. There is no wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It lists the key return fields. However, it does not mention the existence of two input methods (name vs slug) or that slug is more reliable, though this is covered in the schema. Overall, it is adequate for a lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (name and slug). The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, high schema coverage means a baseline of 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool looks up a named colour and returns specific fields (hex, archive, provenance, cultural notes). The verb 'look up' is appropriate for a retrieval tool. However, given many sibling colour tools, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, e.g., from 'colour_story' which might return a narrative or 'colour_forensics' for analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for looking up a colour by name, but it does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools. The input schema includes a 'slug' field with a note that it is preferred for reliable retrieval, but this guidance is not in the description itself. The description lacks explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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).
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.
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.