Skip to main content
Glama

Colour Memory

by io.github.DigbyO

Historical Colour Evidence

historical_colour_query
Read-only

Ask a question about how historical colour authorities actually reasoned, and get evidence with provenance rather than a summary. Covers seven validated source builds -- Jennings (paint recipes, 1902), Bradley (rotating-disc apparatus, 1895), Vanderpoel (quantified object analyses, 1902), Beaumont (woven colour relationships), Hay (harmonic proportional powers, 1838), Guichard (measured spatial extents, 1880) and Hokusai (subject-conditioned colour application, 1848). Each answer names its source, its locator and what that kind of evidence CANNOT support. Use it for questions like 'how do I paint a leaf', 'what did Bradley's disc proportions measure', 'what's the difference between making a colour and applying it', or to check a claim someone has attributed to one of these authors. Crucially, these sources' numbers are NOT interchangeable: a recipe part, a disc share, an object percentage, a proportional power and a measured extent answer different questions, and the response says so explicitly rather than averaging them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo'user' (default) returns an evidence-led answer packet with structured values retained. 'evidence' additionally returns the complete underlying records.
queryYesPlain-English historical colour question.
sourcesNoOptional restriction to named sources.
max_resultsNoUpper bound on evidence items (default 12).
high_confidence_onlyNoOnly high-confidence records.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answerNoEvidence-led answer: what the evidence supports, one observation that changes the question where the records support one, and the boundary of the claim.
evidenceNo
do_not_sayNo
incomparabilitiesNo
premise_correctionNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is the only structured behavioral signal, and the description adds substantial transparent detail: each answer names its source, locator, and evidentiary limits, and it explicitly states that numbers across sources are NOT interchangeable and will not be averaged. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotation provides.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and then branches into sources, behavior, and caveats. It is longer than the minimal case, but the source list and the crucial non-interchangeability warning each earn their place given the tool's specialized historical-evidence scope.

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?

This is a complex tool with five parameters, a rich evidence-based behavior, and a specific niche among many colour tools. The description covers scope, provenance, limitations, example queries, and a critical interpretive caveat, while the output schema handles return-value details. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context for the central 'query' parameter, specifying it as a plain-English historical colour question and offering multiple examples. It also names the seven source builds, which effectively documents the possible values for the 'sources' parameter, something the schema does not enumerate.

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 phrase: 'Ask a question about how historical colour authorities actually reasoned, and get evidence with provenance rather than a summary.' It clearly identifies the resource (validated historical colour source builds) and differentiates itself from summary-oriented tools by emphasizing provenance. The detailed source list further anchors its unique purpose among the many colour and archive siblings.

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 explicit use cases with concrete examples ('how do I paint a leaf', 'what did Bradley's disc proportions measure') and clarifies that the tool is for evidence-led queries rather than summaries. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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