Search bead colors by code, name, HEX value, brand, or series, and limit results to a specific palette to avoid duplicate subset matches.
Search color codes, names, HEX values, brands, or series. Without paletteId, searches representative palettes only to avoid subset duplicates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| paletteId | No | Palette ID from list_palettes, such as perler or artkal-m |
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 burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavior: omitting paletteId restricts the search to representative palettes to avoid subset duplicates. It says nothing about result expansion, ordering, or whether restricting to a palette changes deduplication behavior, so the coverage is partial.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with capability and followed by the one non-obvious caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and each sentence contributes new 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain what a result looks like and how limit affects it. It covers the query surface and the paletteId scoping rule well but leaves result shape and limit semantics entirely implicit.
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 33%: paletteId is documented in-schema and the description adds the scoping consequence of omitting it, while query's meaning is enriched by the enumerated searchable fields. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places beyond its numeric constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb and a concrete enumeration of searchable fields (color codes, names, HEX values, brands, series), which tells an agent exactly what the resource is. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_color or nearest_colors, but the verb 'search' versus 'get'/'nearest' is distinguishable.
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 second sentence describes the consequence of omitting paletteId rather than when to include it, so the scoping rule implicitly guides usage. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_color (exact lookup) or nearest_colors (similarity), leaving the agent to infer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.