Search and fetch icons from 200,000+ icons across 100+ open-source libraries. Supports Material Design, Lucide, Heroicons, Phosphor, Tabler, Font Awesome, and more. No API key required.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing collections, searching icons, browsing a collection's icons, and retrieving SVG markup. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_collection_icons, get_icon_svg, list_collections, search_icons), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server is scoped appropriately for an icon library browsing service. Each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the full workflow: discovering collections, searching and browsing icons, and retrieving SVG markup. No obvious gaps for a read-only icon retrieval service.
get_collection_iconsABrowse all icons in a specific icon library. Returns icon IDs in 'collection:name' format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max icons to return (default: 50) | |
| collection | Yes | Icon library prefix (e.g. 'lucide', 'heroicons', 'tabler') |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| icons | No | Icon IDs in 'collection:name' format |
| total | No | Total icons in the collection |
| collection | No | Icon library prefix |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds output format detail. No contradictions, but behavioral traits beyond annotations are minimal.
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?
One concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and output format.
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 simple browse tool with good annotations and output schema, the description covers key aspects. Could mention default limit pagination or valid collection values, but overall adequate.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit, collection). Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema. 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?
The description clearly states the tool browses icons in an icon library and returns IDs in 'collection:name' format. It distinguishes from siblings: get_icon_svg (SVG), list_collections (libraries), search_icons (search across libraries).
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?
Usage is implied ('browse all icons in a specific icon library') but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools exist but no selection criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_icon_svgAGet the SVG markup for a specific icon. Use the collection and name from a search_icons result (e.g. collection='mdi', name='home').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Icon name (e.g. 'home', 'arrow-right', 'user') | |
| size | No | Icon size in pixels (default: 24) | |
| color | No | Icon color (default: 'currentColor'). Accepts any CSS color value. | |
| collection | Yes | Icon library prefix (e.g. 'mdi', 'lucide', 'heroicons') |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| svg | No | Raw SVG markup for the requested icon |
| name | No | Icon name |
| collection | No | Icon library prefix |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds that the output is SVG markup, but does not discuss error handling (e.g., unknown icon) or rate limits. With annotations present, the description adds modest value.
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 sentences: first conveys purpose with verb and resource, second gives concrete usage guidance. No extraneous words, well-structured and front-loaded.
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 simple read-only icon retrieval tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description suffices. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, how to get parameters, and what it returns (SVG markup). No gaps given the low complexity.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds critical context by linking collection and name to search_icons results and providing an example, helping the agent understand how to populate parameters correctly.
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 retrieves SVG markup for a specific icon, with verb 'Get' and resource 'SVG markup'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_collection_icons (multiple icons) and search_icons (searching) by linking to search_icons results. The example clarifies usage.
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?
Description explicitly advises to use collection and name from a search_icons result, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not formally exclude siblings but the purpose differences are implicit from their names and this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_collectionsAList all available icon libraries (collections) with their prefix and display name. Use the prefix with search_icons or get_collection_icons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| collections | No | All available icon libraries |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing return fields, which is consistent but not enhancing 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?
Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's output and its integration with sibling tools, satisfying all informational needs.
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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (prefix and display name), which helps the agent understand the output without needing to inspect the 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 it lists all available icon libraries (collections) with their prefix and display name. It uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('icon libraries'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining how the prefix is used with them.
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 explicitly instructs to use the prefix with search_icons or get_collection_icons, providing clear guidance on when and how to apply the tool's output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_iconsASearch for icons by keyword across 100+ icon libraries (Material Design, Lucide, Heroicons, Phosphor, Tabler, Font Awesome, and more). Returns icon IDs in the format 'collection:name' (e.g. 'mdi:home', 'lucide:arrow-right').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default: 20, max: 100) | |
| query | Yes | Search keyword (e.g. 'home', 'arrow right', 'user') | |
| collection | No | Optional icon library prefix to search within (e.g. 'mdi', 'lucide', 'heroicons'). Omit to search all libraries. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| icons | No | Icon IDs in 'collection:name' format (e.g. 'lucide:home') |
| query | No | The search query used |
| total | No | Total matching icons found |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the return format and lists example libraries, which is helpful beyond annotations. Could be improved by mentioning sorting or pagination, but overall 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides essential information. Efficient structure.
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 search tool with 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description fully covers the tool's behavior. The return format is detailed, and the scope is clear. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the return format and giving concrete examples (e.g., 'mdi:home'), which helps agents understand parameter usage beyond schema types.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Search for icons by keyword across 100+ icon libraries', clearly identifying the action (search), resource (icons), and scope (multiple libraries). The return format is specified, and the tool's function is distinct from siblings like get_collection_icons and list_collections.
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 for keyword-based searching across libraries but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., when a specific collection is desired). However, the sibling tool names provide context that aids in differentiation, making the usage clear enough for an agent.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
