list_icon_collectionsList your persistent Icon Collections with icon counts. Requires a Pro API token with collections:read and mcp:use scopes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | One-based page number. Default 1. | |
| limit | No | Collections per page, 1-50. Default 20. | |
| query | No | Optional name or slug filter. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds non-obvious context: the collections are persistent, listing includes icon counts, and specific auth scopes (collections:read, mcp:use) are required. No contradiction with 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 front-load the core purpose and output ('List your persistent Icon Collections with icon counts') before adding the essential auth requirement. Every word earns its place.
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 straightforward list operation with fully documented params, a readOnly annotation, and auth details, the description is largely complete. It could optionally describe the response structure beyond icon counts, but the provided information is sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 all three parameters (page, limit, query). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persistent Icon Collections') and adds a distinctive output detail ('with icon counts'). It clearly distinguishes from singular get_icon_collection and other sibling search/add/export tools.
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?
It clearly states the prerequisite (Pro API token) and required scopes, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over get_icon_collection or search_icons, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use cases.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (search, get, create, add/remove, export). However, `recommend_icons_for_ui` and `generate_icon_kit_for_project` overlap semantically with `search_icons` and `create_icon_kit`, which could cause confusion despite good descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, using snake_case throughout. The optional prepositional phrases (e.g., `add_icon_to_collection`, `remove_icon_from_collection`) are consistent and predictable.
12 tools is well-scoped for an icon search and collection management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The set covers search, retrieval, creation, listing, adding/removing icons, and export. Missing operations include deleting a collection and updating collection metadata, which are notable gaps in lifecycle management but can be worked around.