Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Icons8

by com.icons8
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List icon styles

list_platforms
Read-only

List all available icon platforms/styles.

Args: ctx: MCP context for API access limit: Maximum number of results to return (default: 100) page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)

Returns: List of icon platforms/styles

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docsNoIcon platforms (styles) of the requested page. The apiCode of each is the value of platform in search_icons. Absent when error is set.
errorNoSet only on failure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "docs": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "description": "Icon platforms (styles) of the requested page. The apiCode of each is the value of platform in search_icons. Absent when error is set.",
+      "title": "Docs"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "description": "Set only on failure.",
+      "title": "Error"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "IconPlatformsResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description contributes nothing behavioral — no rate limits, no note on whether the full set is always returned, no pagination semantics beyond the raw argument list. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns block. Minor waste exists in the 'ctx: MCP context for API access' line and in restating the return as 'List of icon platforms/styles' right after saying it lists them, but overall it is tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema (so return shape need not be spelled out) and fully described parameters, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness failure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: it explains 'limit' as maximum results (default 100) and 'page' as the pagination page (default 1). This compensates for the undocumented schema fields, though it adds no edge-case meaning (e.g., max limit, behavior past the last page).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List all available icon platforms/styles'), so an agent can tell it is a listing/read tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools such as list_categories or list_illustrations_styles, and the name ('platforms') versus title ('icon styles') creates mild ambiguity about what is actually enumerated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a caller should prefer this over search_icons or the other list_* siblings. The only implicit signal is 'all available', which is a scope statement rather than usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Icons8 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources