Colour Memory

Anachronism Guard

archive_cultural_anachronism

Read-only

Check a list of colour entries for anachronism risk. Detects whether the primary source date falls outside the requested period, whether the archive is a known modern source (RacingSilks, FootballStrips), and returns a period_relevance score and safe phrasing. Essential for historical documents: prevents a 2011 Jockey Club racing silk registration being presented as Georgian evidence. Returns anachronism_risk (none/low/medium/elevated/high), period_relevance score 0-1, safe_phrasing, and unsafe_phrasing for each entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entries`	Yes	Colour entries to check
`period_end`	No	End year e.g. 1830
`period_start`	No	Start year e.g. 1714
`target_period`	No	Period description e.g. 'Georgian England 1714-1830'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description appropriately adds detail beyond the annotation: the specific checks (date range, known modern archives) and the return fields (risk, relevance, safe/unsafe phrasing). The concrete example illustrates typical behavior, though it does not disclose edge cases 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the detection logic and output summary. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation. The description further explains the output values (anachronism_risk, period_relevance, safe_phrasing, unsafe_phrasing) and the practical scenario, making it sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for top-level parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'primary source date' and 'archive', which maps to entry fields, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'Start year e.g. 1714').

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Check a list of colour entries') and names the exact function (anachronism risk). The concrete example of a 2011 racing silk being presented as Georgian evidence clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like archive_provenance or colour_cultural_risk.

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 phrase 'Essential for historical documents' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on anachronism detection and the illustrative scenario make the intended use obvious.

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

All Colour Memory tools Inspect

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

Need Help?