Fetch the SVG markup for up to 20 Infyicon icons in one call (pass an array of ids). Use when building a UI or icon set so you grab several at once instead of calling get_icon_svg repeatedly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Array of icon ids, e.g. ["home-2_101", "gear-1_202"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a fetch operation, supports up to 20 icons, and returns SVG markup. It does not mention error or truncation behavior for more than 20 ids, but the core behavior is explicit.
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 with no fluff. The main behavioral fact is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact and useful.
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 single-parameter bulk fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, limit, invocation style, and when to use it. The main gap is that the response structure is not described, such as whether output preserves id order or is keyed by id, but this is minor for such a simple 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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with type, required flag, and an example. The description only repeats 'pass an array of ids' and adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the SVG markup for up to 20 Infycon icons'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_icon_svg by framing the call as a batch operation, so an agent can tell them apart.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use when building a UI or icon set' and 'instead of calling get_icon_svg repeatedly'. It names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool, leaving nothing to inference.
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.
get_icon_png and get_icon_svg are clearly format-specific retrievers, while search_icons handles discovery and uicons_lookup covers the webfont. Slight overlap exists because search_icons already returns SVG/PNG URLs, but the getters serve distinct purposes.
Most names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_icon_png and list_categories, but uicons_lookup reverses the noun-verb order and looks like a compound noun rather than an action. The case style is consistent, but the ordering convention is not.
Five tools is well-scoped for an icon library: search, SVG retrieval, PNG retrieval, category browsing, and webfont lookup each earn their place. There is no bloat or obvious redundancy in the overall count.
The core search-and-download workflow is covered, and uicons_lookup provides a meaningful extra lookup path. However, list_categories is a dead end because there is no way to fetch icons within a category or filter search_icons by category, creating a notable workflow gap.