Colour Memory

Product Line Colour Namer

ecommerce_namer

Read-only

Generate archive-grounded colour names for up to 40 product SKUs. Input: list of hex values, product category, brand name, naming style. Output: for each hex -- archive name, source citation, one-line product description, dE2000 match distance, match quality, and confidence score. Every name is archive-sourced, not invented. Each carries a primary source citation that can be defended to buyers, press, and brand teams. Use for paint ranges, candle collections, fashion lines, homeware, cosmetics. Style options: geographical, poetic, material, literary, mixed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hexes`	Yes	List of hex values e.g. ['#D4A829', '#1A5C6E']
`style`	No	geographical \| poetic \| material \| literary \| mixed (default)
`max_dE`	No	Max dE2000 distance to accept (default 25)
`brand_name`	No	Brand name for context
`product_category`	No	e.g. 'paint', 'candle', 'fashion', 'homeware'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that names are archive-sourced, carries citations, and includes confidence scores. It does not mention performance or rate limits, but the disclosure is substantial.

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 informative and well-structured, front-loading the core function. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers inputs, outputs, use cases, and constraints thoroughly. No gaps identified.

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 parameters are already documented. The description lists inputs but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; style options are mentioned but not elaborated.

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 generates archive-grounded colour names for product SKUs, with specific inputs and outputs. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing archive sourcing and citations, making it unique among tools like colour_namer or archive_search.

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 specifies use cases for paint, candle, fashion, etc. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but provides clear context. Among siblings, colour_namer exists but is not mentioned as an alternative.

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?