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 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving exact icons, searching by concept, recommending sets, previewing, and listing libraries. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_icon, search_icons), making it predictable and clear.
5 tools is appropriate for an icon management server, covering search, retrieval, preview, recommendation, and library listing without bloat.
The tool set covers the full icon workflow: discovering libraries, searching icons, getting exact icons, previewing them, and getting recommendations. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_iconGet IconAInspect
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, explicit public library labels, visual preview URL, 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 si (Supericons AI and developer tool logos), lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons (Simple Icons brand logos), 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?
Annotations do not set readOnlyHint=true or destructiveHint=true, but the description describes a retrieval operation without mentioning any side effects, permissions, or state changes. While the description adds the return format, it does not clarify safety aspects that annotations leave ambiguous. Given that annotations carry a non-read-only signal, the description misses an opportunity to assert idempotence or read-only behavior.
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 clear sentences, immediately stating the main purpose and usage condition, followed by the return value summary. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded for quick agent scanning.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated in context), the description's mention of return fields (SVG code, labels, preview URL) is sufficient. It also covers the key prerequisites and differentiators. The tool is not overly complex, and the description, combined with schema and annotations, provides a complete picture.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds minor clarification (e.g., 'id without the library prefix') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one exact SVG icon'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling `search_icons` by stating that tool should be used when only a concept is known. It also lists the exact return fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 clear when-to-use guidance: when the icon ID and library are already known. It also explicitly tells the agent when not to use it and directs to the alternative `search_icons` for concept-based queries. This is model usage guidance.
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 and idempotentHint. Description adds the 'free' qualifier but no further behavioral traits. No contradiction.
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, front-loaded purpose, 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?
Simple tool with no parameters, output schema exists, annotations cover behavior. Description is complete and sufficient for effective use.
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, so baseline 4 per guidelines. Description doesn't need to add parameter details.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists free icon libraries, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings (which deal with individual icons) by noting it should be used before filtering by library.
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 states two use cases: before filtering by library, or when user asks about supported libraries. Provides actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preview_iconsPreview IconsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Create a visual preview for icon search results or a fixed list of icon refs. Returns a hosted preview page, direct PNG image URL, ready-made Markdown image snippet, and, when requested, an MCP image contact sheet. Use markdown_image in final answers when the client supports remote Markdown images; otherwise share image_url or preview_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum icons to include in the preview. Keep this small for image-capable clients. | |
| query | No | Optional search query to preview visually, for example "license plate recognition camera scan car". | |
| style | No | Optional style preference. | 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 si (Supericons AI and developer tool logos), lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons (Simple Icons brand logos), and mingcute. | |
| icon_refs | No | Optional fixed icon refs in library:id format, for example ["si:x-ai", "mingcute:scan_2_line"]. | |
| include_image | No | When true, include a PNG contact sheet as MCP image content. A preview_url is always returned. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | No | Recoverable error message when preview inputs are missing or invalid. |
| query | No | Search query used for the visual preview, if any. |
| results | Yes | Icons included in the visual preview. |
| image_url | No | Direct PNG URL for clients or Markdown renderers that can show remote images. |
| preview_url | Yes | Browser URL for visual inspection. |
| image_included | Yes | Whether this response includes MCP image content. |
| markdown_image | No | Ready-made Markdown image snippet for final answers in clients that render remote Markdown images. |
| client_display_note | Yes | Plain-language note for clients that do not render images inline. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return types (preview page, PNG URL, Markdown snippet, MCP image) and conditions (when requested), adding context beyond annotations. No contradictions with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.
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: first covers purpose and output, second delivers actionable usage guidance. No extraneous text.
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?
Covers main purpose, output types, and output usage. With annotations covering safety and output schema likely covering structure, it feels complete; minor gap on error handling.
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% with parameter descriptions already present; description adds minimal additional semantics beyond summarizing that it supports query or icon_refs.
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 it creates a visual preview for icon search results or a fixed icon list, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_icon or 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?
Provides practical guidance on when to use markdown_image vs image_url or preview_url, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_iconsRecommend IconsAInspect
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, with explicit public library labels and visual preview URLs where available. Library key si means Supericons, not Simple Icons.
| 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 si (Supericons AI and developer tool logos), lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons (Simple Icons brand logos), 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. | |
| include_query_frame | No | Optional public-safe diagnostics for query understanding. Leave false for normal compact responses. |
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. |
| preview_url | No | Browser URL for visual inspection of the recommended icon set. |
| query_frame | No | Optional public-safe query understanding diagnostics for the task. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return format (one recommendation plus optional alternatives, library labels, preview URLs) and clarifies library key meanings. Annotations are all false, description adds necessary 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient with zero wasted words. 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?
With output schema existing, description doesn't need to detail return values. Still covers usage context and key clarifications for an 8-parameter tool. Minor gap: no mention of required parameter interplay.
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 has 100% coverage so baseline is 3. Description adds extra value by clarifying library key 'si' means Supericons, not Simple Icons, and providing style usage guidance ('Use outline for most sidebar and toolbar icon sets').
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 'Recommend a coherent icon set for named UI slots' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_icons and get_icon by emphasizing coherent sets for multiple slots.
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.' Provides context but does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to all siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_iconsSearch IconsAInspect
Search 20,000+ curated SVG icons across 11 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", "AI model", or "OpenAI Codex logo". Returns matching icons with SVG code, public semantic guidance, explicit library labels, and browser preview URLs. Library key si means Supericons, not Simple Icons.
| 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 si (Supericons AI and developer tool logos), lucide, tabler, phosphor, heroicons, bootstrap, iconoir, ionicons, material, simpleicons (Simple Icons brand logos), and mingcute. | |
| include_query_frame | No | Optional public-safe diagnostics for query understanding. Leave false for normal compact responses. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | Matching icons with SVG code and semantic guidance. |
| preview_url | No | Browser URL for visual inspection of this search result set. |
| query_frame | No | Optional public-safe query understanding diagnostics. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by detailing return values (SVG code, preview URLs, library labels) and clarifying library key 'si' meaning. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise with three sentences: purpose, usage trigger, and return info. No superfluous 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?
Given 6 parameters (1 required), high schema coverage, and output schema existence, the description fully covers search behavior, return structure, and clarifies a potential ambiguity (si library).
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds limited extra value. It provides example queries and clarifies library keys, but not enough to raise above baseline 3.
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 icons across 11 libraries by various attributes, distinguishing it from siblings like get_icon (single icon) and list_libraries.
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?
It explicitly says when to use the tool by giving examples ('database', 'user profile'), providing clear context. Missing explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the sibling tools imply alternatives.
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.