Retrieve color palettes for a style movement or specific recipe. Use it to get ready-to-apply colors for generative art designs without manual color selection.
Get the color palette(s) for a style movement or specific recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipeId | No | Specific recipe ID to get its palette | |
| movementId | No | Art movement ID to get all its recipe palettes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the plural 'palette(s)' plus 'all its recipe palettes' hints at return multiplicity. It does not disclose error behavior for zero/duplicate parameters or the shape of the returned palette data, so a meaningful gap remains for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource and both scoping options front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The missing piece is the contract for the two optional parameters — which one is required in practice and whether both may be passed — which an agent needs before calling it correctly.
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% and both parameters already explain themselves ('Specific recipe ID to get its palette', 'Art movement ID to get all its recipe palettes'). The description only restates those modes without adding selection logic, exclusivity rules, or ID format details, so 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?
States a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('color palette(s)') and scopes it to two lookup modes: a style movement or a specific recipe. An agent can tell roughly what it returns, though the description never distinguishes it from near-neighbours like design_get_style, design_get_recipe, or extract_palette.
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 phrase 'for a style movement or specific recipe' implies the two usage modes, so the intent is inferable. But it never says whether the two ID parameters are alternatives or can be combined, nor what happens if neither is supplied (the schema marks 0 required parameters), and it names no alternative tool for related lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.