Skip to main content
Glama

Colour Memory

by io.github.DigbyO

Resolve Brand Colour Standard Claim Detail

brand_guideline_claims
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves claim_id values (returned inline on every colour by brand_guideline_specify and brand_guideline_select) into their full claim record: source title/locator/citation, the exact permitted claim text, do_not_say restrictions, and claim_role (anchor/analogue/reject). Read-only -- reads the already-persisted, frozen brand_ref snapshot, never re-runs generation or mutates anything. Omit claim_ids to return every claim on the brand_ref. Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id, same as brand_guideline_pdf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brand_refNoThe brand_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify or brand_guideline_select.
claim_idsNoWhich claim_id values to resolve. Omit (or pass an empty list) to return every claim on the brand_ref.
project_idNoAlternative to brand_ref for an authenticated (keyed) brand project. Requires the same API key that created it.
project_versionNoResolve claims against this specific immutable version instead of the project's current version.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining it reads a 'frozen brand_ref snapshot' and 'never re-runs generation or mutates anything,' plus the behavior of omitting claim_ids. This goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 action, each sentence earning its place. It's concise but information-dense, with no 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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description doesn't need return-value detail. It covers behavioral guarantees, input constraints, and sibling relationships, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that claim_ids are 'returned inline on every colour' by sibling tools, and that brand_ref/project_id are mutually exclusive ('exactly one'). This is useful context beyond the schema definitions.

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 and resource: 'Resolves claim_id values ... into their full claim record.' It clearly lists what the record contains and references sibling tools (brand_guideline_specify/select) that produce the claim_ids, distinguishing it from related tools.

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 provides clear context: use with claim_ids from brand_guideline_specify/select, omit to get all claims, and accept brand_ref or project_id exactly one, same as brand_guideline_pdf. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficiently specific.

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