Supericons
Server Details
Supericons lets AI coding agents search, recommend, and retrieve SVG icons from a semantic registry of 20,000+ free icons.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving by ID, listing libraries, recommending by UI slot, and searching by meaning. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_icon, list_libraries, recommend_icons, search_icons), making naming predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for an icon library: search, retrieve, list, and recommend. Not too few or too many.
Covers core operations for a read-only icon service. Missing a tool to get detailed library info, but search and list provide sufficient coverage.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_iconGet IconBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve one exact SVG icon when the icon ID and library are already known. Use search_icons first if the user only described a concept. Returns SVG code and public semantic guidance for the exact icon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact icon ID without the library prefix, for example "database", "user-circle", "brain-circuit", or "arrow-down". | |
| style | No | Optional style preference. Use "any" unless the caller needs a specific variant. | any |
| library | Yes | Required library key for the exact icon. Supported values include lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons, and mingcute. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| icon | No | Exact matching icon when found. |
| error | No | Recoverable error message when no exact icon is found. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool retrieves an icon, implying a non-destructive read operation. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 10 words with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word serves a purpose.
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 retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., icon metadata) or provide examples. Given the lack of output schema, adding such context would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having detailed descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond restating the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.
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 specifies the verb 'retrieve', the resource 'icon', and the required parameters 'icon ID and library'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_libraries', 'recommend_icons', and 'search_icons' by being a specific retrieval operation for a single icon.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention relationships to siblings or provide any when/when-not context. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_librariesList LibrariesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the free icon libraries available through the hosted Supericons MCP server. Use this before filtering by library or when a user asks which icon libraries are supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| libraries | Yes | Free icon libraries available through this hosted MCP server. |
| publicRecordCount | Yes | Number of public semantic icon records searchable through the hosted MCP server. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description fully conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation. No annotations exist, but the description carries the burden adequately for a simple list tool.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and minimal complexity, the description provides all necessary context. Agent can fully understand the 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?
No parameters exist. Baseline score of 4 applies as per rule for zero-parameter tools; description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable.
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?
Clearly states 'List the free icon libraries', a specific verb-resource pair, and distinguishes from siblings (get_icon, search_icons) which deal with icons rather than 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use, but the simple nature of listing libraries implies it is a preliminary step before using icon tools. Lacks alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_iconsRecommend IconsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Recommend a coherent icon set for named UI slots in a product, app, dashboard, or navigation flow. Use this when the user needs several icons that should work together. Returns one recommendation and optional alternatives for each slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Overall UI task, for example "choose icons for an AI dashboard sidebar" or "select bottom navigation icons for a finance app". | |
| slots | Yes | List of UI slots to fill, for example ["model", "prompt", "dataset", "evaluation"]. | |
| style | No | Optional style preference. Use "outline" for most sidebar and toolbar icon sets unless the user asks otherwise. | any |
| library | No | Optional library key when the user wants a consistent icon family. Supported values include lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons, and mingcute. | |
| limit_per_slot | No | Number of choices to return for each slot. Use 1 for a final pick or 2-3 when the user wants alternatives. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Original UI task. |
| style | No | Style preference used for recommendations. |
| library | No | Library filter used for recommendations, if provided. |
| results | Yes | Recommended icon choices grouped by requested UI slot. |
| slot_count | Yes | Number of UI slots requested. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, though it is implied by the recommendation nature. More transparency would be beneficial.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on the return format or what happens with invalid inputs.
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 descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds contextual examples (app navigation, dashboard panels) but does not significantly augment parameter meaning beyond 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 the verb 'recommend', the resource 'icons', and the context 'UI slots', differentiating it from sibling tools like search_icons which finds specific icons.
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 implies usage for recommending icons for UI slots, but does not explicitly exclude or mention alternatives when to use search_icons or get_icon instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_iconsSearch IconsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search 20,000+ free icons across 10 libraries by meaning, label, visual description, tags, and synonyms. Use this when the user describes an icon concept such as "database", "user profile", "chill", "security", or "AI model". Returns matching icons with SVG code and public semantic guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of icons to return. Use 5-10 for browsing and 1-3 for quick agent choices. | |
| query | Yes | Icon concept or search phrase, for example "database", "user profile", "chill", "trash", "upload cloud", "AI model", or "beautiful". | |
| style | No | Optional style preference. Use "any" unless the user asks for outline or solid icons. | any |
| library | No | Optional library key. Supported values include lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons, and mingcute. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | Matching icons with SVG code and semantic guidance. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only search operation but lacks details such as rate limits, authentication needs, or absence of side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that delivers the core information without waste. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope.
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 the tool's parameter complexity and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It lacks details about return format or pagination, but those are not essential for tool selection.
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 input schema covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that search works by meaning, label, visual description, tags, and synonyms, which clarifies the query's flexibility.
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's purpose: searching over 20,000 free icons across 10 libraries using multiple criteria. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_icon' (retrieving a single icon) and 'list_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?
The description implies usage for searching icons but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!