Blends two hex colors using a configurable weight and generates a gradient palette of up to 20 steps for design and UI work.
Blend two hex colors together, optionally generating a gradient palette.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No | Number of gradient steps (1-20, default 1). | |
| color1 | Yes | First hex color. | |
| color2 | Yes | Second hex color. | |
| weight | No | Blend weight 0-1 (default 0.5). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys the core operation and that gradient output is optional, but says nothing about the return format (single hex vs list), whether the operation is pure/side-effect free, or how steps and weight interact.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the optional extension with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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 output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (a blended color, and a palette when steps > 1), but it does not. For a simple four-parameter computation the description is adequate but leaves the output shape and parameter interplay undocumented.
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 all four parameters (color1, color2, steps, weight) are already documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description only loosely implies the steps parameter via 'gradient palette' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 specific verb ('blend') and resource ('two hex colors') plus the optional gradient output. Clear on its own, but it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling color_mix, which an agent would need to disambiguate against.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus color_mix, color_palette, or colormind_generate_palette, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'optionally' hints that gradient generation is conditional, but the condition that selects it is left implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.