mcp
Server Details
Provides UX capabilities to enhance the design output and understanding of AI systems.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: describing fonts, searching fonts, generating color schemes, providing icon instructions, searching icons, and typesetting layouts. There is no overlap that would cause confusion.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (describe_font, search_fonts, etc.), but 'icons_instructions' is noun_noun and 'typeset' is a single verb, breaking the consistency.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Material Design assistant. Each tool covers a distinct aspect (fonts, icons, colors, layout) without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers the major design needs: font discovery, icon usage, color scheme generation, and layout typesetting. Minor gaps like custom color scheme editing exist but are not critical.
Available Tools
5 toolsdescribe_fontARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Describes a font family in detail, including its look and feel, supported styles, weights and how to use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes | Required. The platform in which the font family is going to be used. | |
| fontFamily | Yes | Required. The full name of the font family to describe. Example: "Roboto", "Noto Sans". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| features | No | Supported features of the font family such as weight, style and variable axes, if available, in Markdown format. |
| guidance | No | Guidance on how to effectively use the font family, if available. |
| errorHelp | No | Optional. Contextual help text if the font family name was not found or is invalid. |
| languages | No | List of supported language and script in BCP47 format. |
| description | No | Description of the font family, in Markdown format. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what information is returned (styles, weights, usage instructions), enhancing the agent's understanding beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys essential information without redundancy. While concise, it could be more front-loaded by leading with the verb, but overall it is well-structured.
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?
Given the presence of both input and output schemas, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It lacks details about edge cases (e.g., invalid font names), but for a descriptor tool with good schema support, this is sufficient.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's overall purpose. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it describes a font family in detail, including look and feel, supported styles, weights, and usage. It uses a specific verb ('describes') and resource ('font family'), and distinct from sibling tools like search_fonts or typeset.
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 usage when detailed font info is needed, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, context from sibling names (e.g., search_fonts) helps differentiate, so the gap is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_color_schemeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Generates a Material Design color scheme from one or more key colors. Always use this when you need to create a color scheme for an application. The input is one or more named colors in hex format, and the output is a color scheme with a map of color role names to colors in hex format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| primaryKey | Yes | Required. The primary key color used as the main seed for the scheme. Can be a 6-character hex code (e.g., "#4285F4" or "4285F4"), or any standard CSS color name (e.g., "blue"). | |
| tertiaryKey | No | Optional. The tertiary key color used to generate the color scheme. If omitted, it will be automatically derived from the other keys. Can be a hex code or any CSS color name. | |
| secondaryKey | No | Optional. The secondary key color used to generate the color scheme. If omitted, it will be automatically derived from the other keys. Can be a hex code or any CSS color name. | |
| backgroundKey | No | Optional. The neutral key color used to generate the color scheme. If omitted, it will be automatically derived from the other keys. Can be a hex code or any CSS color name. | |
| contrastLevel | No | Optional. The contrast level of the color scheme. Values range from -1 (minimum contrast) to 1 (maximum contrast). 0 represents standard contrast (i.e. the design as specified). | |
| optionalTheme | No | Optional. Whether to generate a light or dark theme. If unspecified, and a background key is supplied, it will be inferred from that. If not, it will default to light theme. | |
| optionalSchemeVariant | No | Optional. If only the primary key color is supplied, this will select which variant of the color scheme to use. If only the primary key color is supplied and this is not set, it defaults to "TONAL_SPOT". If multiple key colors are supplied, this is ignored, and it will default to "BRAND". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| colorScheme | No | The generated color scheme. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains input format (hex or CSS names), output format (map of color roles to hex), and behavior of optional fields (derivation, defaults). No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three sentences front-load purpose, usage guideline, and input/output summary. No unnecessary words, each sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the 7 parameters with 100% schema coverage, detailed annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, input format, and output structure adequately.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions input/output format, which is already covered. No additional nuance.
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 clearly states the tool generates a Material Design color scheme from key colors, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools about fonts and icons.
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?
Explicitly says 'Always use this when you need to create a color scheme,' providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or discuss alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
icons_instructionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Provides essential and critical instructions on how to use Material Icons and Material Symbols efficiently on Web.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| instructions | No | Instructions on how to use Google Material Icons and Google Symbols efficiently. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it provides 'instructions,' which aligns with a non-destructive, read-only operation. No contradictions.
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 sentence that is clear and front-loaded. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose as providing instructions. No additional details needed.
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?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.
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 clearly states the tool provides instructions for using Material Icons and Material Symbols on the web. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_icons or typeset.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_fontsBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Finds appropriate fonts matching categories and/or languages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Optional. The sort order for the returned font families. Defaults to POPULARITY_DESCENDING if unspecified. | |
| platform | Yes | Required. The platform in which the font family is going to be used. | |
| languages | No | Optional. Language tags in BCP47 format to filter fonts that support specific scripts (e.g., "en_Latn", "zh_Hans"). | |
| categories | No | Optional. One or more categories to filter font families |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| errorHelp | No | Optional. Contextual help text or error descriptions if the query failed. |
| fontFamilies | No | The names of font families that match the search criteria (e.g., "Roboto", "Open Sans"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of 'finds appropriate fonts' aligns with a read-only search. No additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits) is added beyond the annotations, making this adequate but not enriched.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool is a search function with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the core purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's primary function, though it omits mention of optional parameters like sort and platform.
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 the schema fully documents the parameters. The description echoes 'categories and/or languages' which matches two parameters, but adds no new details about sort or platform. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the complete 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?
The description clearly states the tool finds fonts by categories and/or languages, which is concise and specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like search_icons or describe_font, though the verb 'finds' and object 'fonts' are clear.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_font or search_icons, nor does it specify any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_iconsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Finds appropriate Material Design icons matching keywords that describe their usage, style, or shape.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | Required. A list of semantic keywords or metadata tags that describe the desired icon's visual or functional properties. If possible, specify at least three tags to describe usage, style, and shape. Examples: - For a "save" icon: ["save", "diskette", "document", "storage"] - For a "home" icon: ["home", "house", "building"] If multiple tags are provided, the service returns icons that match any part of the tag list, ordered by relevance (number of matching tags). If no tags are provided, all icons are returned. | |
| iconSet | No | Optional. The icon set to search within (e.g., "Material Symbols", "Material Icons"). If omitted, the default icon set of the environment is used. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| icons | No | The names of icons that match the provided tags, ordered by relevance. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming the search nature. It does not disclose any rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, explaining return values is not needed. The description covers the core functionality well. However, it could mention that results are ordered by relevance (already in param description) or any maximum results, but overall it's fairly complete.
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 detailed explanations for both parameters (tags and iconSet). The main description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding Material Design icons based on keywords. It uses a specific verb 'Finds' and specifies the resource 'Material Design icons'. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like search_fonts.
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 itself does not include guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the parameter description for 'tags' provides implicit usage guidance (e.g., suggesting at least three tags). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!