IconVaultKit
Server Details
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.
- 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 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing collections, searching icons, browsing a collection's icons, and retrieving an SVG. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_collection_icons, get_icon_svg, list_collections, search_icons), making them predictable and easy to understand.
4 tools is well-scoped for an icon retrieval server, covering discovery, search, and retrieval without being too few or excessive.
The set covers the core workflow (list, search, browse, get SVG). A minor gap is the lack of a tool for retrieving individual icon metadata (e.g., tags), but it does not hinder the primary use case.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_collection_iconsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Browse 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') |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| icons | No | Icon IDs in 'collection:name' format |
| total | No | Total icons in the collection |
| collection | No | Icon library prefix |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds that it's a browse operation and output format, but no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate 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?
Single sentence that effectively communicates purpose and output format. 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 annotations, output schema, and simple nature, the description is complete enough. Could mention pagination or default limit behavior, but output schema likely covers return structure.
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 clear descriptions. Description adds minimal extra (output format), but not needed for parameter comprehension.
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?
Clearly states it browses all icons in a specific library and returns IDs in a defined format. Distinguishes from siblings: get_icon_svg, list_collections, search_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?
Implies usage when you need to list icons in a collection, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_icon_svgARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get 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') |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| svg | No | Raw SVG markup for the requested icon |
| name | No | Icon name |
| collection | No | Icon library prefix |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns SVG markup and how to obtain the required parameters (from search_icons result). 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives actionable usage guidance. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 (context shows 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter derivation, and relationship to sibling tools (via the hint to use search_icons results). The tool is simple and the description is 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to derive parameter values (e.g., 'collection' and 'name' come from search_icons results). This provides practical workflow guidance.
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: 'Get the SVG markup for a specific icon.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SVG markup'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieval of the actual SVG content rather than metadata or 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 provides clear usage context: 'Use the collection and name from a search_icons result.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after search_icons). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are given, but the context is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_collectionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List 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 | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| collections | No | All available icon libraries |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns prefix and display name, but does not add significant behavioral context beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded, and every sentence provides useful information without waste.
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 no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and usage. It is complete for a simple listing tool.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly indicates no parameters. Base score for 0 params is 4.
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 'List all available icon libraries (collections)' with clear verb and resource. It mentions using the prefix with sibling tools, but does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.
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 tells when to use the tool (list all collections) and directs the agent to use the prefix with search_icons or get_collection_icons. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_iconsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search 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. |
Output Schema
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by stating the return format and the scope of search (100+ libraries), which is useful beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Search for icons by keyword', and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.
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 an output schema (implied), the description covers the main behavior, return format, and scope. It lacks details like pagination or ordering, but the limit parameter addresses results count. Overall adequate given the annotations and siblings.
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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add additional semantics about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 function: searching for icons by keyword across 100+ icon libraries. It specifies the return format ('collection:name') and gives examples, distinguishing it from siblings like list_collections or get_icon_svg.
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 provides clear context for using the tool (keyword search across libraries) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_collections or get_collection_icons. This is a minor gap.
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!