Supericons
Server Details
Semantic SVG icon search and recommendations for AI coding agents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- curlymolelabs/supericons
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- supericons
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 4.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: search_icons for exploring concepts, get_icon for retrieving a known icon, list_libraries for available libraries, and recommend_icons for UI slot suggestions. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_icon, list_libraries, recommend_icons, search_icons), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With four tools, the server is well-scoped for an icon service: searching, retrieving, listing libraries, and recommending sets. Each tool adds clear value without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the main icon workflows (discovery, retrieval, recommendation) adequately. A minor gap might be bulk operations or library filtering, but the set is largely complete for typical use.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_iconGet IconARead-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?
Adds detail about return value (SVG code and semantic guidance) beyond annotations that already mark it as safe and read-only.
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, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, no wasted 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?
Complete for a simple retrieval tool with detailed schema and annotations; return value is described.
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% so baseline is 3; description does not add extra detail about parameters beyond what schema provides.
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 retrieves one exact SVG icon when ID and library are known, distinguishing it from search_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?
Explicitly says when to use (already known ID and library) and when to use search_icons instead (user described concept).
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that libraries are 'free' and 'available through the hosted Supericons MCP server', which is useful but not essential behavioral context.
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, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly use this 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 is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info.
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 'List the free icon libraries' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating this is the preliminary step before filtering or answering library support questions.
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?
Explicit usage contexts: 'Use this before filtering by library or when a user asks which icon libraries are supported.' This provides clear guidance on when to invoke this tool.
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 |
| locale | No | Optional locale for multilingual slot labels. Supported values: zh-Hans, zh-Hant, ja, ko, es, de, pt, ar, hi, vi, th. | |
| 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. | |
| response_mode | No | Response size mode. Use plan for compact icon IDs and reasons, assets to include SVG only for each top recommendation, or full to include SVG and semantic payloads for all returned choices. | plan |
| 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?
Description adds that it returns one recommendation and optional alternatives, consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). No contradictions.
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 concise sentences with purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without waste.
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?
With 7 parameters, 2 required, full schema coverage, and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects. It explains what to use and how.
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%, so param details are already provided. Description adds usage context like 'Use outline for most sidebar and toolbar icon sets', providing value beyond 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?
Clearly states the verb 'recommend' and resource 'icon set for named UI slots'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_icon' (single icon) and 'search_icons' (finding icons) by focusing on coherent sets.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the user needs several icons that should work together.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools provide implicit context.
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+ curated SVG 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 |
| locale | No | Optional locale for multilingual search terms. Supported values: zh-Hans, zh-Hant, ja, ko, es, de, pt, ar, hi, vi, th. | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's behavioral burden is lower. The description adds that the tool returns SVG code and public semantic guidance, which provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 long, with the first sentence efficiently stating the tool's purpose and scope, and the second providing immediate usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 (most optional) and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (SVG code and guidance). It is complete enough for an agent to understand, though it could hint at result count or pagination.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage hints for parameters, such as limit range (5-10 for browsing, 1-3 for quick choices) and examples for query, which enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.
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 searches over 20,000+ curated SVG icons across 10 libraries by meaning, label, visual description, tags, and synonyms. It provides specific examples like 'database' or 'user profile', distinguishing it from siblings such as get_icon, list_libraries, and recommend_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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user describes an icon concept' and gives multiple examples, providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though sibling names imply them.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.