rnv-color-mcp

Official

by RNVizion

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes related to color operations. However, the inclusion of 'transform_text' is unrelated to color and could confuse agents about the server's domain. Palette retrieval tools (get_palette, list_palettes) are similar but distinct.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names consistently use the verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., 'convert_color', 'list_palettes'). The exception is 'transform_text', which breaks the pattern both in verb domain and object, but the naming style is still consistent.
Tool Count4/5
With 9 tools, the server covers a reasonable scope of color operations plus palette management. The count is slightly elevated due to the unrelated 'transform_text' tool, but overall it's well-scoped for a color utility server.
Completeness3/5
The server provides core color functionalities (difference, contrast, conversion, harmony, mixing) and palette CRUD with save/update and get/list, but lacks a delete palette operation. The inclusion of 'transform_text' is a significant gap as it is outside the color domain and does not contribute to completeness.
Average 4.3/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 153 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list of hex colors but does not address side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or any limitations such as rate limits or destructive actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the tool's purpose and the second detailing parameter specifications. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (two required parameters, no enums in schema but description provides enums), the description covers input formats and output type adequately. It omits error handling or edge cases, but for a generation tool this is acceptable. The output schema exists, so return values are implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain parameter semantics. It effectively clarifies that 'base' accepts hex, CSS name, brand name, or saved-palette reference, and enumerates the valid 'scheme' options. However, it could provide examples for the saved-palette reference format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a color harmony from a base color, specifying that it accepts various color formats and lists the available scheme types. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_color or contrast_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for generating harmony schemes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_palette or list_palettes. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return values (hex, rgb), optional weights, mode options with explanations (digital vs paint), though lacks disclosure on side effects or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Dense but informative single paragraph; could be structured with bullet points for readability, but all sentences add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers inputs, modes, and return types; minor gaps on weight-colors alignment and output schema structure, but largely complete given complexity and output schema existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains all parameters: colors format, weights, mode choices and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool blends colors, specifies input types and modes, and is distinct from sibling tools like color_difference or convert_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings or alternatives; does not mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'exact, deterministic,' which implies predictable output, but it does not disclose error handling for invalid operations, side effects, performance characteristics, or the output format. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second lists operations and provides usage guidance. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple transformation tool with two string parameters and an existing output schema (not shown), the description covers the main intent and options. It lacks parameter descriptions for 'text' and could mention return format or error behavior, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Overall, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists the allowed operations for the 'operation' parameter but does not describe the 'text' parameter beyond being the input string. While the operations are enumerated, no details on their effects or constraints are provided. Partial compensation but not complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies an 'exact, deterministic text transformation' and enumerates the supported operations (UPPERCASE, lowercase, etc.). It distinguishes itself from manual case conversion, and the sibling tools are unrelated (color utilities), so no sibling differentiation needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Use this rather than converting case by hand,' providing a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools (though none exist in siblings for text transformation). The guidance is sufficient but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds value by specifying that colors are hex values, notes become the palette's description, and author is recorded as 'RNVizion'. It misses potential destructive behavior or permission needs but covers key aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every part earns its place, and the structure is clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: create/update behavior, parameter hints, and side effect of recording author. Missing details like constraints on hex values or idempotency, but sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains 'colors' and 'notes' thoroughly, including format and storage behavior. The 'name' parameter is not explained beyond its requirement. Overall, it compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool saves or updates a named palette for reuse, with an example. It distinguishes from siblings like get_palette and list_palettes by focusing on creation/update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for saving/updating palettes but gives no explicit guidance on when to use save vs update, nor any conditions or alternatives. It lacks explicit context for compared to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return of colors and metadata, and null if not found. No annotations exist, so description bears full burden; missing details like auth or side effects, but adequate for a simple read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers retrieval, return content, and null case; output schema provides return structure; complete for a straightforward getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage but single string param 'name'; description says 'by name' linking to palette name, which is minimal but sufficient for a simple key.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'palette by name', distinguishes from siblings like list_palettes (list all) and save_palette (create/update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for fetching specific palette by name; no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling names provides differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description clearly indicates a read-only listing operation. Could explicitly state no side effects, but 'list' sufficiently implies non-destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, single sentence with essential information. Front-loaded verb and resource, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools as description adds no param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'every saved palette', with output format 'name + colors'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_palette (single palette) and save_palette.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when or when not to use. Implies it's for viewing all palettes, but doesn't mention alternatives or contexts like filtering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses accepted input formats, the optional 'to' parameter, and the conditional output (single format or all). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a conversion tool this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, no filler. First sentence states the core action. Second sentence details parameters and output. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers input types, optional parameter, and output behavior. It lacks mention of error handling, but for a color conversion tool this is likely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: it explains that 'color' accepts hex, CSS name, RNV brand name, or saved-palette reference, and that 'to' can be one of hex/rgb/hsv/hsl/lab or null to return all formats. This adds essential meaning beyond the plain schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert a color between formats.' It specifies the input types (hex, CSS name, RNV brand name, saved-palette reference) and the output behavior depending on the 'to' parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like color_difference or contrast_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool (when converting colors) and explains the optional 'to' parameter for output format. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, though the context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fills in behavioral details: accepted color formats (hex, CSS name, RNV brand name, saved-palette reference), method defaults, and a threshold for human perception. It could mention side-effects or limitations but overall is informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then covers inputs and method, then interpretation, then return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs and behavior completely. It explains what the return value means (value and interpretation) beyond what the schema likely provides. All necessary context is present for the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: color1 and color2 accept multiple formats, the 'method' parameter has clear options and a default. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes 'Perceptual difference (Delta-E) between two colors', specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'contrast_check' (likely contrast ratio) and 'convert_color' by focusing on perceptual difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the two method options ('ciede2000' vs 'cie76') and their interpretations, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like 'contrast_check' or 'generate_harmony'. It implies usage through parameter details but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes output and accepted input formats. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not explicitly state it is read-only, but behavior is transparent regarding what it returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second adds input formats and usage hint. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple parameters, output schema exists (though not shown), and description covers input formats, output details, and usage context. Complete for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but description adds significant meaning: both parameters accept hex, CSS name, RNV brand name, or saved-palette reference. This compensates fully for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool checks WCAG contrast ratio between foreground and background colors for accessibility. Specifies output includes ratio and pass/fail for AA/AAA. Distinguishes from sibling tools like color_difference by focusing on accessibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to check if text will be readable on a background.' Does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rnv-color-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RNVizion/rnv-color-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RNVizion/rnv-color-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rnv-color-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RNVizion/rnv-color-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RNVizion/rnv-color-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RNVizion/rnv-color-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server