Skip to main content
Glama

Colour Memory

by io.github.DigbyO

Coverage Gap Report

archive_coverage_gap
Read-only

Given a list of themes, report which are well-evidenced in the archive and which are under-evidenced or missing. Returns a coverage matrix: for each theme, entries found, coverage grade (strong/moderate/weak/missing), best match with claim strength, and what source type would be needed to improve coverage. Use this BEFORE building an archive_report_brief or brief_forensic to know where the evidence is strong and where gaps will appear. Prevents building beautiful reports that quietly ignore half the brief.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
themesYesThemes to check e.g. ['opium', 'gin', 'gambling', 'racing']
archivesNoOptional archives to search e.g. ['EIC', 'Dickens']

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds some behavioral context about preventing reports that ignore evidence gaps, but it mostly reiterates the output structure (coverage matrix, source type) rather than disclosing side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by output details and a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or promotional language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, output format, and workflow timing concisely, while the annotation and complete schema handle safety and parameters. It lacks only an explicit contrast with the similar sibling archive_evidence_gap, but that is not essential for using the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'themes' and 'archives', including examples. The description only restates 'a list of themes' and does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('report') with a clear resource ('coverage gap in the archive') and details the output (coverage matrix, grades, claim strength). It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on per-theme evidence coverage and explicitly referencing downstream tools like archive_report_brief and brief_forensic.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this BEFORE building an archive_report_brief or brief_forensic'. This provides a clear workflow context, though it does not mention when not to use it or compare it directly with alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Colour Memory toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources