generate_company_paletteGenerate a color palette from a hex color (read-only — computes shades, changes nothing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | 3-6 character hex color code (without #) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The generated palette — the shade scale computed from the given colour, keyed by shade step. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'read-only — computes shades, changes nothing.' It adds the detail that the tool computes shades, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. Given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotation coverage, this is sufficient.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Generate a color palette') and clarifies the read-only nature in a parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the essential behavior: it generates a palette, is read-only, and computes shades. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.
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 fully documents the hex parameter, including format (3-6 characters), and explicitly states it is without '#'. The description does not add further parameter detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Generate a color palette') and the input ('from a hex color'), with an explicit clarification that it is read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or create other resources, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. While the name is self-explanatory, an agent would have to infer its purpose in the broader context of tools like create_theme or update_theme.
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.