Convert a color between HEX, RGB, and HSL. Enter any format to receive all three representations as output.
Convert a color between HEX, RGB, and HSL formats. Input any format and get all three representations back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | Color value in HEX (#FF5733), RGB (rgb(255,87,51)), or HSL (hsl(11,100%,60%)) | |
| format | No | Preferred output format: "hex", "rgb", or "hsl". Returns all formats regardless. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond what the schema already states: the color parameter describes accepted formats, and the format parameter already says 'Returns all formats regardless.' It does not disclose edge cases, error behavior, or output structure, adding minimal value beyond structured fields.
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 15 words that front-loads the verb and resource. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant explanation.
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 transformation tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: input any supported color format and receive all three representations. It does not specify the exact output structure, but no output schema exists, and an agent can call the tool correctly with the given information. Missing only a precise return-shape description, which is a minor gap.
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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description merely echoes the supported formats and the return-all-formats behavior, which are already present in the parameter descriptions. It adds no extra parameter meaning, so the 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 identifies the verb 'convert', the resource 'color', and the specific formats involved (HEX, RGB, HSL). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which handle color conversion, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
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 implies use whenever a color needs conversion between HEX, RGB, or HSL. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling set contains no competing color tool, so the intended usage context is clear. An explicit 'use when...' would make it fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.