name_colorGet the closest human-readable name for one or more colors. Pass a single hex or several comma-separated (e.g. "#3b82f6,#000,#ff7f50"); returns each input with its nearest color name, the reference hex, an exact-match flag and the perceptual distance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | A hex color, or several comma-separated (e.g. "#3b82f6,#000,#ff7f50"). Up to 100 at once. |
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 and idempotentHint, which describe the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return components: nearest color name, reference hex, exact-match flag, and perceptual distance. It also discloses the 'up to 100 at once' limit, which is not in the annotations. This is solid transparency, though it does not discuss error conditions or response format details.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose, then provides the input format, example, and output details. Every clause contributes necessary information; there is no wasted text or redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how to pass input, what the output contains, and operational limits. The annotations cover safety, and the return value breakdown compensates for the lack of an output schema. No important context is missing.
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 the single parameter 'hex', which already fully describes the format, examples, and limit. The tool description simply repeats this information without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning.
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 and resource: 'Get the closest human-readable name for one or more colors.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like extract_colors, get_palette, or check_contrast by focusing on naming colors. The description also provides a direct input example, making the tool's function 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 clearly states the context for use: when you have hex colors and need their nearest human-readable names. It gives explicit input format instructions and a usage example, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use the tool. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.
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.