Convert a color from HEX, RGB, HSL, HSV, or CMYK into all other formats at once, so you can reuse the same value across design and code.
Convert a color from one format into ALL other formats (HEX, RGB, HSL, HSV, CMYK) at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | Yes | Source format: hex, rgb, hsl, hsv, or cmyk | |
| color | Yes | The color value, e.g. #ff0000 or rgb(255,0,0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / color / descriptionAdded value: +"The color value, e.g. #ff0000 or rgb(255,0,0)"Input schema / properties / from / descriptionAdded value: +"Source format: hex, rgb, hsl, hsv, or cmyk"Input schema / properties / toRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "color",
- "from",
- "to"
-]New value: +[
+ "color",
+ "from"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the tool emits every target format simultaneously and enumerates them, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing the result structure (e.g., how each format is keyed).
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the payoff (all formats at once), with the format list parenthetical at the end. 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?
For a trivial two-parameter pure-function converter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what is missing: which formats come back. Only the shape of the returned object and error behavior for malformed input are left unstated.
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%, with both a `from` enum-like list of source formats and an example value for `color`, so the schema already explains the inputs. The description's format list overlaps with the schema rather than adding syntax or validation guidance, which is the correct baseline-3 case.
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 names a specific verb (Convert) and resource (a color) and states the scope of the output: all formats at once, enumerated as HEX, RGB, HSL, HSV, CMYK. That scope wording implicitly distinguishes it from single-format siblings such as color_hex_convert, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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 "ALL other formats at once" implies the usage condition (when you want every representation rather than one), but the description never says when NOT to use it or points to an alternative. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.