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') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icons | No | Icon IDs in 'collection:name' format | |
| total | No | Total icons in the collection | |
| collection | No | Icon library prefix |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
