get_color_shadesGenerate tints and shades for a base color (lighter/darker steps) with hex values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Base color in hex, rgb(), or hsl(). | |
| step | No | Step percentage (default 10). | |
| limit | No | Cap on tints/shades (default fills to ~100%). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the detail of outputting hex values and lighter/darker steps, which is useful but does not disclose nuances like default step behavior or output format. This is adequate but not rich beyond 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 a single sentence of 14 words, starts with the action verb, and avoids any fluff. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool has only 3 parameters, all documented, and no output schema. The description mentions 'with hex values' but does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array, object). Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about output structure.
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%, with each parameter (hex, step, limit) already having a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource: tints and shades for a base color, with lighter/darker steps and hex values. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_palette or extract_colors, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or that get_palette might be more suitable for full palettes. Given the sibling tools, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.