Generate an interpolated gradient between two hex colors. Returns color stops and a ready-to-use CSS linear-gradient string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | Number of gradient stops (2–20, default 5) | |
| color1 | Yes | Start hex color | |
| color2 | Yes | End hex color |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / steps / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of gradient steps (max 20). Default 5."New value: +"Number of gradient stops (2–20, default 5)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that the output includes stops and a CSS gradient string, and implies the interpolation method. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid hex, ordering, whether steps includes endpoints) or mention that the operation is side-effect-free.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and deliverables. Every word contributes value, and 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?
While the description covers the core purpose and output, it omits details such as expected color format (e.g., #RRGGBB), whether steps includes the endpoint colors, and any constraints on interpolation. With no output schema or annotations, these omissions make the description only minimally complete for a simple 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 three parameters, so the schema already documents the meaning of color1, color2, and steps. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 3 applies.
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 action 'Generate an interpolated gradient' and identifies the resources (two hex colors). It also specifies the output: color stops and a CSS linear-gradient string. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_css which likely handles broader CSS generation.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives such as generate_css or generate_tailwind. It only states what it does, without context on prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must infer applicability.
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.