Find one approximate screen-color match in each selected bead palette from a HEX value or existing bead code, so you can translate colors across brands.
Find one approximate screen-color match per selected palette, starting from a HEX value or an existing bead code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | No | ||
| code | No | ||
| includeEffects | No | ||
| sourcePaletteId | No | Palette ID from list_palettes, such as perler or artkal-m | |
| targetPaletteIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that matches are approximate and that there is one match per selected palette, but it does not explain input precedence when both hex and code are supplied, how includeEffects changes behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or what the return structure looks like.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and input alternatives are presented immediately.
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 five-parameter matching tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits input precedence, includeEffects behavior, the role of sourcePaletteId, and any indication of the response shape.
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 only 20%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies the hex/code starting alternatives and that target palette IDs represent selected palettes, but it leaves includeEffects and sourcePaletteId unexplained and does not state whether hex and code are mutually exclusive.
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 states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('approximate screen-color match'), and scope ('per selected palette'), with the supported starting inputs named. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as nearest_colors.
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 when the tool is useful: when starting from a HEX value or an existing bead code and wanting matches across selected palettes. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like nearest_colors or search_colors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.