adjust_shadeAdjust a color’s lightness to meet a target luminance while preserving its hue and saturation, using the palette solver for consistent shades.
Keep a color's hue and saturation and find the lightness that hits a target luminance, using the site's solver. This is how every palette shade is made.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lum | Yes | Target luminance, 0-100. | |
| color | Yes | Hex, rgb(...) or hsl(...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: hue and saturation are held constant while only lightness changes, and the value comes from the site's solver (i.e. deterministic, not freehand). It stops short of noting solver approximation or precision limits.
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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the contextual note about palette shades. Every clause carries 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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool this is nearly complete; the invariants and solver behavior are stated. The only gap is that with no output schema, the description never says what comes back (a hex string? a shade object?), leaving the return shape to inference.
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% – both `color` (hex/rgb/hsl) and `lum` (0-100) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the meaning of `lum` as the target and `color` as the source whose hue/sat are kept, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource: preserve hue/saturation and solve for the lightness that hits a target luminance. That distinguishes it from luminance_scale and generate_palette, though no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
"This is how every palette shade is made" gives implied context for when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the six siblings. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.