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 arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
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.
