Generate a set of harmonious colors from a base hex color. Harmony types: complementary, analogous, triadic, split, tetradic, monochromatic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Harmony type | |
| color | Yes | Base hex color, e.g. "#ff5733" | |
| count | No | Number of colors for monochromatic only (2–10, default 5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / count / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of colors (only for monochromatic). Default 5."New value: +"Number of colors for monochromatic only (2–10, default 5)"Input schema / properties / type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Harmony type: complementary, analogous, triadic, split, tetradic, monochromatic"New value: +"Harmony type"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic purpose. It doesn't mention output format, that 'count' applies only to monochromatic, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the 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 concise sentence with a list of harmony types. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description should explain the return format, but it doesn't. It also doesn't clarify parameter nuances like the optional 'count' for monochromatic. The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for a caller.
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 lists harmony types, but these are already in the schema enum. It doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate a set of harmonious colors from a base hex color.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and lists the harmony types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_gradient or random_palette.
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 when to use the tool: when a harmonious color scheme based on a hex color is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools serve distinct purposes, so the context is clear enough.
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.