Colour Memory

Colour Specification Safety Check

colour_forensics

Read-only

Assess whether a hex colour can be safely specified for a physical application. Returns: specification_safe verdict (yes / conditional / avoid), risks, required actions, light behaviour under three illuminants (north daylight, warm artificial, direct sun), substrate-specific notes, and a recommended alternative. Backed by CIEDE2000 archive matching and Claude material knowledge. Examples: ultramarine on lime plaster, lead white on exterior timber, verdigris on north-facing interior wall, red ochre on historic brick.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hex`	Yes	Hex colour to assess e.g. '#2A5498'
`use`	No	Specific use context e.g. 'heritage repair', 'new build interior', 'conservation project'
`finish`	No	Paint finish e.g. 'matt', 'eggshell', 'gloss', 'limewash'	matt
`substrate`	Yes	Physical substrate e.g. 'lime plaster', 'gypsum board', 'brick', 'timber', 'canvas'
`orientation`	No	Room or surface orientation e.g. 'north-facing', 'south exterior', 'east bedroom'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the tool's read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint) and adds context about its methodology (CIEDE2000 archive matching, Claude material knowledge) and output structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of three well-structured sentences: purpose, output listing, and examples. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, output, and examples adequately. However, it lacks mention of error handling or limitations, which would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The examples implicitly show parameter usage, but no additional semantic guidance is provided.

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 assesses whether a hex colour can be safely specified for a physical application. It lists specific outputs (verdict, risks, actions, light behaviour, etc.) and provides concrete examples, distinguishing it from sibling colour tools like colour_compare or colour_cultural_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No contrast with sibling tools or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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?