search_iconsSearch published Digche icons by name, alias, use case, tag, category, or functional meaning. Use this before choosing a UI icon. Returns a paste-ready summary and a preview image of the results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1 to 20. Out-of-range values are clamped. | |
| query | Yes | Functional intent such as previous page, analytics, or delete item. | |
| style | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches only 'published' icons and returns 'a paste-ready summary and a preview image', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, or describe pagination or error behavior, so it's partial transparency.
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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states function, the second gives usage timing and return value. Efficient 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?
The description covers purpose, timing, return format, and scope. It lacks detailed parameter semantics for style/category and doesn't explain the output schema, but these are partially covered by the input schema. The combination is adequate for a search tool with 4 simple parameters.
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 schema already documents query and limit. The description adds that query can include 'functional meaning' and other dimensions, enriching the query concept. However, the style and category parameters receive no description in either schema or text, even though the schema description coverage is only 50%. The description mentions 'category' as a search dimension but not as a filter parameter.
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 identifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'published Digche icons', and enumerates search dimensions (name, alias, use case, tag, category, functional meaning). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_replacement or preview_icons, and the phrase 'Use this before choosing a UI icon' reinforces its purpose.
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 a clear usage context: 'Use this before choosing a UI icon.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from sibling tools like find_replacement, so it lacks exclusions or alternative pointers.
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.