Extract dominant color palette from an image. Returns hex/RGB/HSL colors with percentages, CSS names, and complementary colors. Great for design systems, mood boards, and color matching. FREE. (FREE)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes | Base64-encoded PNG/JPEG image | |
| format | No | Color format in output | hex |
| num_colors | No | Number of colors to extract (3-12) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool is free ('FREE'), and details the returned data (percentages, CSS names, complementary colors) that go beyond the input schema. No contradictions 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a repeated 'FREE. (FREE)' which is redundant. The first sentence effectively states functionality, but the second sentence lists use cases which, while helpful, could be more concise. The repetition of FREE is unnecessary and wastes space.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by specifying return types (hex/RGB/HSL, percentages, CSS names, complementary colors). All 3 parameters are fully documented in the schema. Annotations provide safety hints. The only missing piece is not explicitly stating that the image must be Base64-encoded (though the schema parameter description covers it). Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only color extraction 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% for all 3 parameters (image, format, num_colors), each with clear descriptions. The description mentions 'returns hex/RGB/HSL colors' which maps to the format parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It also mentions 'percentages' which is not a parameter. Thus description provides marginal added value over the schema.
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?
Clearly states the action (extract dominant color palette) and the resource (from an image). Lists specific return values (hex/RGB/HSL colors, percentages, CSS names, complementary colors) and use cases (design systems, mood boards, color matching). Sibling tools include other image operations but no other palette extraction, so it is well distinguished.
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?
Mentions use cases ('Great for design systems, mood boards, and color matching') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. No alternative tools are named or exclusion criteria given. The 'FREE' tag hints at cost but not usage context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—artwork retrieval, image processing, asset management, watermarking, etc.—with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like enrich_metadata and get_artwork_oracle are differentiated by depth and purpose.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artwork, remove_background, register_hash). The few non-verb-starting names (compliance_manifest) are standard and do not break the overall pattern.
27 tools is slightly above the typical range but justifiable given the broad domain covering artwork access, image processing, and digital rights. Each tool serves a unique purpose without redundancy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search, retrieve, analyze, edit, save, and verify assets. Gaps are minimal—e.g., no metadata deletion tool—but the core workflows are fully supported, and the inclusion of compliance and provenance tools adds value.