Convert a hex color code into its color name, RGB, HSL, and CMYK values for accurate color identification and design use.
Get detailed color information (name, RGB, HSL, CMYK) for a hex color.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | Hex color code (e.g. FF5733 or #FF5733). |
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, but this is a simple read-only lookup with a low behavioral burden. The description helpfully enumerates the returned representations (name, RGB, HSL, CMYK), yet it never explicitly states that the operation is a non-mutating read, so it does not fully carry the disclosure load on its own.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and 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?
For a one-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it names the input and lists the return fields. The only gap is the absence of sibling routing, which is minor for such a simple tool.
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 the single 'hex' parameter is fully documented with examples in the schema. The description only restates 'for a hex color' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('color information'), and the exact fields returned (name, RGB, HSL, CMYK) scoped to a hex input. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings such as color_info, color_hex_convert, or thecolorapi_scheme, so an agent cannot easily route between them from the description alone.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'for a hex color' only weakly implies the input context, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to the many other color tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.