Kódvéna

Favicon-generátor link

favicon_link

Read-onlyIdempotent

Előtöltött link a böngészős favicon-generátorhoz betűs (monogramos) ikonnal: ott letölthető a favicon.ico, favicon.svg, apple-touch-icon, 192/512 és maskable ikon, site.webmanifest és a HTML-kód egy ZIP-ben.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "favicon_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`font`	No
`text`	Yes	1–3 betű, pl. a cég monogramja
`color`	No	Betűszín
`shape`	No
`site_name`	No	A weboldal neve (manifest)
`background`	No	Háttérszín

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's main added value is explaining that the result is a pre-filled browser link and what can be downloaded from the destination (favicon files, webmanifest, HTML in ZIP). It does not mention link persistence or any external-site caveats, but this exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the output as a pre-filled link. The long asset list is informative, though it adds some length.

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?

For a simple link-generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return concept (a pre-filled link) and the destination's downloadable artifacts. Parameter details are left to the schema, and safety is covered by annotations, so no critical calling information is missing.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not explain any of the six parameters; its 'letter (monogram) icon' phrase only loosely echoes the text parameter. With schema coverage at 67%, the undescribed font and shape enums remain without description-level compensation.

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?

The description states that the tool provides a pre-filled link to a browser favicon generator for letter/monogram icons and enumerates the assets available there. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic link tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like create_graphic_link.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: an agent can infer it should call this when a favicon or monogram icon link is needed, especially since the description lists downloadable favicon assets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling link-generation tools.

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

All Kódvéna tools Inspect

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

Need Help?