query_hexFind the closest named archive colours to a hex value using CIEDE2000 perceptual distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Hex value with or without # e.g. '#8B4513' | |
| archive | No | Optional: restrict to a named archive | |
| n_results | No | Number of results (default 5) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured JSON response. Shape varies by tool; most return an 'ok' boolean plus a 'result' or 'results' field with the tool's data payload.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "error": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "ok": {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "result": {
- "type": [
- "object",
- "array",
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "result": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "array",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "input_hex": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "nearest_colours": {
- "items": {
- "properties": {
- "archive_source": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "colour_notes": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "hex": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "match_quality": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "nearest_ral": {
- "type": "object"
- },
- "primary_source": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "rgb_distance": {
- "type": "number"
- },
- "zone": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- "type": "array"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "input_hex": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nearest_colours": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "archive_source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "colour_notes": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hex": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "match_quality": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "nearest_ral": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "primary_source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "rgb_distance": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "zone": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the use of CIEDE2000 perceptual distance for closeness. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies how 'closest' is computed, which is valuable for the agent. The lack of detail on return format is mitigated by the presence of an output schema.
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 succinct sentence that immediately states the action and key qualifiers. It contains no redundant words and is front-loaded with the verb 'Find', making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
With a clear purpose, a read-only annotation, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects of the tool. The only minor omission is explicit context on what 'archive colours' means, but the title and parameter schema sufficiently convey that it refers to a named archive. Overall, it is complete for a simple query tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'hex value' which aligns with the required parameter, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the archive and n_results parameters. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.
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 uses a specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource 'the closest named archive colours to a hex value' and the method 'CIEDE2000 perceptual distance'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like colour_match_paint or query_conceptual, which have different inputs or outputs.
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 the use case: when you have a hex value and want the closest named colours from an archive. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 but is stronger than merely implied usage.
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.