Colour Memory

Archive Gradient — Lab-Interpolated Colour Journey

palette_gradient

Read-only

Generate a perceptually smooth gradient between 2-5 archive anchor colours. Each interpolated stop snaps to the nearest real archive colour by CIEDE2000. Anchor stops are kept true to their source. Choose linear (physically accurate Lab interpolation) or chroma_preserved (LCh interpolation, short-arc hue, avoids desaturated midpoints). Returns stop array, CSS linear-gradient string, or SVG swatch bar. Use for design briefs, colour journey visualisations, and gradient systems. The result already carries the rendered palette and its PNG, PDF, ASE, JSON and CSS downloads -- show them to the customer. Never present the archive anchors a colour was derived from as the colours you are recommending. If you go on to choose a final palette OF YOUR OWN from this evidence, call palette_finalize once with those exact colours so the customer can see and download what you actually recommended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	linear: straight Lab lerp (may have neutral midpoint). chroma_preserved: LCh short-arc, saturation maintained.	chroma_preserved
`steps`	No	Total stops including anchors (default 7, max 20)
`anchors`	Yes	2-5 hex values (#RRGGBB) or exact archive colour names
`archive`	No	Restrict snapping to this archive name e.g. Victorian
`output_format`	No	stops: array of colour objects. css: linear-gradient string. svg: swatch bar.	stops
`snap_to_archive`	No	Snap each stop to nearest archive colour (default true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by detailing CIEDE2000 snapping, anchor-stop preservation, interpolation modes, output formats, and the fact that rendered downloads accompany the result. It also adds an important customer-facing caveat about not presenting source anchors as recommendations.

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 information-dense but well-structured: core operation, algorithm, path semantics, return types, use cases, and downstream workflow. Every sentence earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, two enums, and an output schema, the description covers operation, algorithm, output types, use cases, attached downloads, and post-call workflow. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and act on the result.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail: the 2-5 anchor cardinality, the perceptual difference between linear and chroma_preserved paths, and what each output_format produces. These details are not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 'Generate[s] a perceptually smooth gradient between 2-5 archive anchor colours' with specific interpolation and snapping behavior. This makes the verb, resource, and scope explicit, and uniquely distinguishes it from sibling palette tools even without naming them.

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?

It gives explicit use cases ('design briefs, colour journey visualisations, and gradient systems') and prescribes the follow-up action: show rendered downloads and call palette_finalize if choosing an independent palette. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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?