Skip to main content
Glama

Colour Memory

by io.github.DigbyO

Finalise a chosen palette

palette_finalize
Read-only

Package a palette YOU HAVE ALREADY CHOSEN into a professional, visible, downloadable deliverable. Call this ONCE, after you have decided the final colours for the customer -- it verifies and packages your decision and returns the palette image plus PNG, SVG, PDF, ASE, JSON and CSS. It does not search, select, replace or improve anything: the colours you send are the colours that come back, in your order. Send every final colour with its name, and mark a colour source-backed only if it really is a Colour Memory archive record -- anything unverified is presented as your recommendation, which is the honest description of it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
briefNoThe customer's request, in their words.
notesNoShort usage guidance, in your words.
titleNoWhat you are calling this palette.
coloursYesThe final palette, in the order you want it shown.
source_anchorsNoArchive records that informed the palette but are not in it. Give the record's name so it can be verified.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it reveals that the tool verifies and packages, returns specific file formats, preserves colour order, and downgrades source-backed claims that fail archive verification. It also warns that unverified colours are presented as recommendations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 not bloated, with the core instruction front-loaded ('Call this ONCE'). The closing 'which is the honest description of it' is slightly redundant but does not undermine clarity.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description supplies all essential operational context: when to call, what it returns, what it does not do, and how to handle colour status. An agent has enough to invoke it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds important meaning: every final colour should have a name, order is preserved, and the status enum is explained with the 'source-backed only if it really is a Colour Memory archive record' rule. This goes beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('package') and resource ('a palette YOU HAVE ALREADY CHOSEN'), then explicitly lists what it returns and what it does not do. This clearly distinguishes it from selection/search/improvement siblings like palette_generate and palette_iterate.

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?

It gives strong when-to-use guidance: 'Call this ONCE, after you have decided the final colours'. It also rules out search/select/replace/improve use cases, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly as alternatives.

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