colour_match_paintFind the nearest named colour in commercial paint systems including Farrow and Ball and Little Greene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | Number of matches (default 3) | |
| brand | No | Optional brand filter: 'farrow' or 'little_greene' | |
| hex_val | Yes | Hex value e.g. '#003153' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description does not need to reiterate that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the core purpose—such as whether multiple matches are returned (though the 'n' parameter hints at this) or any limitations. It is not misleading, but does not enrich beyond the annotation.
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, well-formed sentence that is immediately understandable. It conveys the essential information without any fluff or repetition, earning a high score for conciseness.
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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and full schema parameter coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the output schema presumably addresses that. A small gap is that it does not mention the optional brand filter or the 'n' parameter, but these are documented in the schema.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description does not mention the optional 'brand' filter or 'n' parameter, but the schema provides adequate semantics.
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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('nearest named colour in commercial paint systems'), and it explicitly names the brands covered (Farrow and Ball and Little Greene). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like colour_mix or colour_namer, which likely serve different purposes.
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 converting a hex value to a named commercial paint colour, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The brand filter is mentioned in the schema but not in the description, so guidance on optional narrowing is absent.
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.