accessibility_simulateReturn simulated hex values for protanopia, deuteranopia, and tritanopia using the Brettel-Vienot-Mollon model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex_val | Yes | Hex value e.g. '#BE0032' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Return simulated hex values', so there is no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context by naming the Brettel-Vienot-Mollon model and specifying the three simulated types, providing more insight than the annotation alone.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the specific output, and the method. No fluff or repetition, every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is complete. It explains what it returns, the model used, and the three color blindness types. No critical context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'hex_val', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource (simulated hex values for three types of color blindness), using a named model. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on simulation output rather than checking or comparing accessibility features.
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 implies usage for simulating color blindness hex values but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternative tools like accessibility_check or colour_compare. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is merely implied.
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.
With 88 tools, there is substantial overlap: colour_passport vs colour_dna vs colour_metrics vs colour_cultural_risk are explicit components of the same object; palette_concept vs palette_strict vs palette_generate vs palette_heritage overlap heavily; and four image extraction tools exist (extract_image_colours, image_palette, palette_extact, ingest_image). Although descriptions are detailed and tool_guide exists, an agent will frequently struggle to select the correct tool unambiguously.
Nearly all tools follow a consistent snake_case noun_verb or domain-prefixed pattern (colour_*, palette_*, brand_*, archive_*, project_*, accessibility_*). The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixing of styles or verb conventions across the set.
88 tools is an extreme count for an MCP server. Even honoring the broad domain, the rubric places 50+ at the extreme end, and the high overlap between compound and individual tools suggests many could be consolidated or exposed as sub-resources rather than top-level tools.
The tool surface covers the full colour lifecycle: lookup, analysis, palettes, brand systems, accessibility, image extraction, interior design, archival research, reports, PDF generation, and project management. Workflows have clear entry points and few dead ends, and the presence of compound tools further closes integration gaps.