Generate CSS :root custom properties from a list of hex colors. Returns a ready-to-paste CSS block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | CSS variable prefix (default: "palette") | |
| colors | Yes | Array of hex color strings |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Variable prefix name. Default \"palette\"."New value: +"CSS variable prefix (default: \"palette\")"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns a 'ready-to-paste CSS block', which is the primary behavior. For a stateless generation tool, this is adequate, though it doesn't mention edge cases like invalid color handling, which is acceptable for this scope.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: it specifies the input, the output format, and the destination (CSS :root). There is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what it does and what it returns ('ready-to-paste CSS block'). It provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing additional details.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'hex color strings' is already in the schema). It does not explain the 'name' parameter further, but the schema's description is sufficient.
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 generates CSS :root custom properties from hex colors, with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('CSS :root custom properties'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_gradient and generate_tailwind by focusing on CSS variable generation, and mentions the output ('ready-to-paste CSS block').
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the user needs CSS custom properties from hex colors. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. It still gives enough context for a simple tool.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: contrast checking, palette generation from a base color, random palette generation, color format conversion, and CSS/Tailwind output generation. While color_harmony and random_palette both generate harmonious colors, their inputs differ (base color vs. random), making the distinction unambiguous.
Tool names mix conventions: some use a verb_noun pattern (check_contrast, convert_color, generate_css, generate_gradient, generate_tailwind) while others use noun_phrase (color_harmony, random_palette). The 'generate' prefix is applied inconsistently, as color_harmony and random_palette also generate outputs but don't follow the pattern. However, names are still readable and descriptive.
Seven tools is well within the optimal range for a color utility server. Each tool serves a distinct function and together they cover the core color operations without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full workflow: generating palettes (color_harmony, random_palette), converting colors (convert_color), checking accessibility (check_contrast), and generating design-system outputs (generate_css, generate_tailwind, generate_gradient). There are no obvious dead ends; a user can generate a palette, examine its colors, and export it to different formats.