get_icon_svgRetrieve a validated SVG variant after selecting a Digche slug. Prefer Linear for functional product UI unless the project uses another Digche style.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| style | No | Linear | |
| allowFallback | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validated' but doesn't explain what validation entails, what happens when an invalid slug is passed, or how allowFallback influences behavior. No side effects, permissions, or error handling are disclosed.
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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second offering practical style guidance. It is front-loaded, avoids redundancy, and every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core action but omits behavior around fallback, validation errors, return format, and relationship to sibling tools. Given the available schema detail, a more complete description of edge cases and expected outcomes is needed.
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 0%, and the description only indirectly references the 'slug' and the 'Linear' style. It does not explain the slug pattern, the meaning of each style option, or the allowFallback parameter. The schema itself provides some structure (enum, default), but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond that.
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 action: 'Retrieve a validated SVG variant after selecting a Digche slug.' It specifies a resource (SVG variant) and a prerequisite (slug), making the tool's role distinct from search or replacement siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives a style recommendation ('Prefer Linear for functional product UI unless the project uses another Digche style'), which is useful for choosing the style parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives (search_icons, find_replacement), only implying it should be used once a slug is known.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: searching, retrieving, listing, previewing, recommending, and finding replacements. Even though search_icons and preview_icons both accept queries, their intents (discovery vs. comparison) are clearly differentiated in the descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (find_replacement, get_icon_svg, list_categories, preview_icons, recommend_icons, search_icons), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an icon library server. Each tool serves a essential step in the icon selection workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovering categories, searching, previewing, retrieving SVGs, recommending sets, and replacing third-party icons. The only minor gap is the absence of a direct metadata-only lookup, but search summaries and SVGs largely fill this need.