Convert color strings into hex, RGB, and HSL formats. Handles hex, rgb, hsl, and CSS named colors.
Parse a color string and return it in hex, rgb, and hsl formats. Accepts hex (#fff, #ffffff), rgb(r,g,b), hsl(h,s%,l%), and CSS named colors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | Yes | Color to parse (e.g. '#ff6600', 'rgb(255,102,0)', 'tomato') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the core behavioral trait: it parses a color string and returns representations in hex, rgb, and hsl. It also lists exactly which input grammars are accepted. It stops short of describing invalid-input behavior or the exact output shape, but for a pure parsing function it is reasonably transparent.
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, tightly written sentence front-loads the action and output formats, then lists accepted inputs with concrete examples. No words are wasted and every clause carries useful 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?
For a one-parameter pure function with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers accepted input grammar and return formats well enough for an agent to select and invoke it. It omits invalid-input behavior and the exact structure of the returned object, but these are minor gaps for such a small, focused utility.
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 100% and the schema already provides an example, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly enumerating accepted shorthand hex, functional rgb/hsl notation, and CSS named colors, going beyond the schema's single example string and giving the agent a fuller semantic model of the parameter.
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 ('Parse'), a clear resource ('a color string'), and the three output formats. It also enumerates accepted input forms, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the contrast and accessibility sibling tools.
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 this tool is for normalizing color strings into hex/rgb/hsl, and the sibling names suggest contrast/accessibility tasks belong elsewhere. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer routing from names rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.