Colour Memory

Render Brand Colour Standard PDF

brand_guideline_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Renders a client-facing brand colour standard from an existing brand_ref. The document covers the direction carried forward and its assessment, the colour system in proportion, the argument for the palette, packaging and digital application, a full pairwise WCAG accessibility matrix computed upstream (never hand-drawn examples), and a provenance and evidence register in which every claim is bound to the colour it belongs to. Page count is not fixed: sections that have nothing real to say are omitted rather than padded -- a single-candidate brand_ref drops the comparison spread, and a candidate that was never scored for distinctiveness gets a different page shape rather than an empty scale. Derived colours are never presented in documented-source language. Renders the brand_guideline_select-chosen candidate if one has been recorded, otherwise the strongest eligible candidate as a provisional preview (clearly labelled as such). Reads only the already-persisted, frozen snapshot -- never re-runs brand_guideline_specify, never rematches an archive, never mutates the resolved project. Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`delivery`	No	'url' (default): signed, time-limited R2 download link. 'base64': PDF bytes returned inline.	url
`brand_ref`	No	The brand_ref returned by brand_guideline_specify or brand_guideline_select.
`project_id`	No	Alternative to brand_ref for an authenticated (keyed) brand project. Requires the same API key that created it.
`project_version`	No	Render this specific immutable version instead of the project's current version. Omit to render the current version.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: variable page count, omission of empty sections, provisional preview labeling, and the guarantee never to mutate or recompute. This goes far beyond the structured annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes a substantive detail about output composition or behavioral guardrails. It is longer than average but contains no filler or repeated information, earning a strong score despite its length.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and a description that covers output content, variable behavior, input prerequisites, and safety guarantees, the tool is fully specified. An agent has all necessary information to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the essential exclusivity rule ('exactly one of brand_ref or project_id') and traces brand_ref provenance to brand_guideline_specify/select, providing context not captured in the schema.

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 ('Renders') and resource ('client-facing brand colour standard PDF') derived from an existing brand_ref. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like brand_guideline_specify and brand_guideline_select by focusing on rendering an existing snapshot rather than creating or selecting.

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 states the prerequisite ('from an existing brand_ref'), gives the exclusivity constraint ('Accepts exactly one of brand_ref or project_id'), and explicitly names what it never does ('never re-runs brand_guideline_specify, never rematches an archive'). It stops short of naming alternative tools for those scenarios, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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?