Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

More Good Reviews

by com.moregoodreviews
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Icon

getIcon
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Icon

Return the current project icon, or null when none is set.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "getIcon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoApplication-level status code returned by this API.
dataNoStored icon image. Null when the project has no icon.
successNoIndicates whether the request completed successfully.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond that — returning null when no icon is set — but says nothing about permissions or scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. The leading 'Get Icon' line merely restates the title and is mild waste, but the rest earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read tool, stating the resource and the null case is nearly complete; only sibling disambiguation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline is 4. Schema coverage is reported at 100%.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the current project icon') and adds the null edge case. It does not explicitly differentiate from the close siblings getLogo and getBranding, so an agent must infer that 'icon' and 'logo' are distinct resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as getLogo or getBranding, despite three closely related retrieval siblings. The agent gets no help deciding which of these to call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All More Good Reviews toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources