Supericons

Get Icon

get_icon

Retrieve one exact SVG icon using an exact ref returned by search_icons, recommend_icons, or preview_icons. Do not guess icon IDs. Use search_icons first if the user only described a concept. Returns SVG code, explicit public library labels, visual preview URL, and public semantic guidance for the exact icon.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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. Material Symbols supports outline and solid. Other hosted libraries report their verified styles in list_libraries.	any
`library`	Yes	Required library key for the exact icon. Supported values include si (Supericons AI and developer tool logos), lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons (Simple Icons brand logos), and mingcute.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Stable error code when the exact icon is unavailable.
`hint`	No	Plain-language explanation of how to recover.
`icon`	No	Exact matching icon when found.
`error`	No	Recoverable error message when no exact icon is found.
`next_step`	No	Recommended next tool action.
`retryable`	No	Whether repeating the same exact lookup may succeed.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context: the id must come from prior tool outputs, and it discloses what is returned. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid id/library) or whether it is purely read-only, though 'Retrieve' implies read-only. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the function, the second gives a key rule and fallback, the third lists return values. No fluff, well front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple with 3 params and an output schema. The description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how to get valid inputs, what to return, and when to use alternatives. With sibling context and schema present, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: the 'id' must be an exact ref returned by search_icons/recommend_icons/preview_icons, and users must not guess. This constrains how the parameters are used and reinforces the workflow, which the schema alone does not convey.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves one exact SVG icon using an exact ref, and distinguishes it from search_icons by explicitly instructing to use search_icons for concepts. It names the exact return values (SVG code, labels, preview URL, guidance), making the purpose vivid and specific.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidance: 'Do not guess icon IDs' and 'Use search_icons first if the user only described a concept.' It also references sibling tools (search_icons, recommend_icons, preview_icons) as sources of valid refs, clearly indicating when this tool is appropriate versus when to use alternatives.

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

All Supericons tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: search finds icons, recommend builds sets for UI slots, preview refines result sets, get retrieves exact SVG code, and list_libraries enumerates available libraries. Despite some overlapping concepts like 'preview' and 'get', the descriptions explicitly differentiate when to use each one.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_libraries, search_icons, recommend_icons, preview_icons, get_icon. The naming style is uniform and predictable across the entire set.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for an icon service: library discovery, search, recommendation, preview, and exact retrieval. Each tool addresses a necessary part of the icon selection workflow without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full icon workflow: discover libraries, search by meaning, get multi-icon recommendations, preview sets in Markdown/PNG, and fetch exact SVG code. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?