Return harmonised colour sets with hex and RGB values from a seed colour. Pure CPU, instant.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"color": "<color>"
},
"name": "color_harmony"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | Seed colour |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / colorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Seed colour",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "color"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two useful traits: 'Pure CPU' signals no external calls or side effects, and 'instant' signals latency expectations. It still omits which harmony rules are applied (complementary, triadic, etc.), whether output is deterministic, and how many colours are returned.
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?
Two short sentences with the capability front-loaded and the performance/safety note second. No padding, no restatement of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it partially does (hex and RGB values). It is silent on the count of colour sets, the harmony types supported, and accepted seed formats, which leaves real gaps for a caller composing the request.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds the notion that this input is a 'seed' from which other colours are derived, which is meaningful framing, but it does not state the accepted input format (hex string, name, RGB) for the 'color' field.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('harmonised colour sets with hex and RGB values') plus the input source ('from a seed colour'), which is clearly a colour-derivation tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from relevant siblings such as color_palette, color, or color_contrast, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Given a crowded colour-tool family (color, color_palette, color_contrast, color_names), the agent is left to infer that this is the tool for harmony schemes rather than flat palettes or contrast checks.
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.