Colour Memory

Archive Gradient — Lab-Interpolated Colour Journey

palette_gradient

Read-only

Generate a perceptually smooth gradient between 2-5 archive anchor colours. Each interpolated stop snaps to the nearest real archive colour by CIEDE2000. Anchor stops are kept true to their source. Choose linear (physically accurate Lab interpolation) or chroma_preserved (LCh interpolation, short-arc hue, avoids desaturated midpoints). Returns stop array, CSS linear-gradient string, or SVG swatch bar. Use for design briefs, colour journey visualisations, and gradient systems. The result already carries the rendered palette and its PNG, PDF, ASE, JSON and CSS downloads -- show them to the customer. Never present the archive anchors a colour was derived from as the colours you are recommending. If you go on to choose a final palette OF YOUR OWN from this evidence, call palette_finalize once with those exact colours so the customer can see and download what you actually recommended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	linear: straight Lab lerp (may have neutral midpoint). chroma_preserved: LCh short-arc, saturation maintained.	chroma_preserved
`steps`	No	Total stops including anchors (default 7, max 20)
`anchors`	Yes	2-5 hex values (#RRGGBB) or exact archive colour names
`archive`	No	Restrict snapping to this archive name e.g. Victorian
`output_format`	No	stops: array of colour objects. css: linear-gradient string. svg: swatch bar.	stops
`snap_to_archive`	No	Snap each stop to nearest archive colour (default true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: interpolation is mathematically defined (CIEDE2000 snapping, Lab/LCh paths), anchor stops remain true, and the returned result already carries rendered outputs and downloads. It also sets downstream expectations about showing downloads and finalizing recommendations, which is valuable for correct agent behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core behavior, then efficiently covers options, outputs, usage context, and post-call obligations. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters, rich input schema, output schema, and broad sibling context, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the algorithm, snapping behavior, output formats, use cases, rendering/download behavior, and the correct handoff to palette_finalize. Nothing critical is left for the agent to guess.

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 useful parameter-related context such as the 2-5 anchor range, CIEDE2000-based snapping, the distinction between linear and chroma_preserved paths, and the stop array/CSS/SVG output alternatives. It supplements rather than merely repeats 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a perceptually smooth gradient between 2-5 archive anchor colours.' It further clarifies the unique snapping behavior and output types, clearly distinguishing it from related palette tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly lists target use cases ('design briefs, colour journey visualisations, and gradient systems') and provides clear handoff guidance by naming palette_finalize as the next step when the agent chooses its own final palette. It also gives a negative rule about not presenting source anchors as recommendations, which helps the agent avoid a common misuse.

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?