Convert between sRGB and CMYK color profiles. Essential for print production. CMYK output as TIFF with embedded DPI. FREE. (FREE)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpi | No | Output DPI (72-1200) | |
| image | Yes | Base64-encoded PNG/JPEG image | |
| target_profile | No | Target color profile | cmyk |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: 'CMYK output as TIFF with embedded DPI,' which explains the output format. However, it does not fully disclose the behavior for sRGB output or other edge cases, and the 'FREE' text is irrelevant.
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?
The description is generally concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose, context, and output detail. However, the repeated 'FREE. (FREE)' is redundant and detracts from conciseness, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description explains the core functionality and the CMYK output format, but it lacks important details such as the return format (e.g., base64 string, file URL) and what happens when converting to sRGB. Since there is no output schema, the description should cover these aspects more thoroughly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'embedded DPI,' which reinforces the dpi parameter's role, but it does not provide substantial additional meaning beyond what the schema already says.
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 tool's purpose: 'Convert between sRGB and CMYK color profiles.' This is a specific verb + resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_palette or remove_background. The additional context about print production and TIFF output further clarifies its role.
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 provides clear context by stating 'Essential for print production,' which tells the user when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as print_ready, so it does not fully meet the top criterion.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_artwork and get_artwork_oracle, which both retrieve artwork metadata with different detail levels, potentially causing confusion. Other tools like enrich_metadata and infuse_metadata also have related but distinct functions, but descriptions help clarify differences.
Tool names generally follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_balance, delete_asset, resize_image), with minor deviations like mockup_image (noun_verb) and get_artwork_oracle (longer compound name). Overall, the naming is readable and predictable, though not perfectly uniform.
With 27 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, as it covers a broad range of functionalities from artwork retrieval to image processing and compliance. While each tool seems useful, the scope feels heavy and could overwhelm agents, suggesting it might be better split into more focused servers.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for digital asset management, artwork analysis, and image processing, including CRUD operations (save_asset, get_asset, list_assets, delete_asset), metadata enrichment, compliance, and various image utilities. No obvious gaps are present for the stated domain.