Generate a Tailwind CSS color config object. Colors are mapped to standard shades (50, 100, 200 … 900) in order. Paste the result into tailwind.config.js theme.extend.colors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Color group key (default: "brand") | |
| colors | Yes | Array of hex color strings (up to 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: 'Colors are mapped to standard shades (50, 100, 200 … 900) in order,' which reveals the transformation logic. It does not mention edge cases, but the schema covers limits like 'up to 10' and the name default.
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 with no fluff. The action is stated first, followed by the mapping rule and the usage instruction. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately sized.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value concept ('config object'), the shade mapping, and the integration point. No significant gaps are present.
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 coverage is 100% (both name and colors have descriptions), but the description adds crucial semantics for the `colors` array by explaining the ordered mapping to shades 50–900. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and description, providing meaning about how order affects output.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a Tailwind CSS color config object.' It also clarifies the output's destination ('Paste the result into tailwind.config.js theme.extend.colors'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_css or generate_gradient.
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 gives a clear usage context by instructing to paste the result into tailwind.config.js theme.extend.colors, implying the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions.
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.