Multilingual semantic SVG icon search with previews for AI coding agents. 20,000+ icons.
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 3.9/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: list_libraries enumerates sources, search_icons is the primary discovery, recommend_icons handles slot-based sets, preview_icons refines/previews, and get_icon retrieves exact refs. There is slight conceptual overlap between search_icons and recommend_icons (both handle ambiguous meaning), but recommendation is explicitly slot-oriented while search is query-oriented, so boundaries are clear.
All five tools consistently use the snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_icons, list_libraries, preview_icons, recommend_icons, get_icon), and every name is a verb followed by a plural noun object. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is a well-scoped, earned set. Each tool maps to a distinct stage in the icon selection workflow without redundancy or bloat. This is right in the sweet spot for a focused service server.
The tool surface covers the full icon workflow: discover libraries, search by concept, recommend by UI slots, preview/refine, and retrieve exact icons. The search→preview→retrieve pipeline is well connected. Minor gap: there's no obvious update/create operation for custom icons, but for a read-only icon library server the lifecycle feels complete.
get_iconGet IconAInspectRetrieve one exact SVG icon using an exact ref returned by search_icons, recommend_icons, or preview_icons. Do not guess icon IDs. 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. Material Symbols supports outline and solid. Other hosted libraries report their verified styles in list_libraries. | 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. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | Stable error code when the exact icon is unavailable. |
| hint | No | Plain-language explanation of how to recover. |
| icon | No | Exact matching icon when found. |
| error | No | Recoverable error message when no exact icon is found. |
| next_step | No | Recommended next tool action. |
| retryable | No | Whether repeating the same exact lookup may succeed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations set readOnlyHint to false, while the description describes 'Retrieve', implying a read-only operation. This is a direct annotation contradiction. No behavioral traits beyond the return value are disclosed, but the contradiction forces a score of 1.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the main action, a usage warning, and the return value. No wasted or redundant 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?
The description covers purpose, usage constraints (don't guess, use search_icons for concepts), and return value contents (SVG code, labels, preview URL, semantic guidance). An output schema exists, but the description adds valuable context without being bloated. Complete for a retrieval 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?
The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds context that the id must be an exact ref from specific tools, but this is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the 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?
Description clearly states 'Retrieve one exact SVG icon using an exact ref' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'exact' and requiring a ref from search_icons, recommend_icons, or preview_icons, contrasting with search and preview functions.
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?
Description explicitly instructs users to not guess icon IDs and to use search_icons first when the user only described a concept. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative tool recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_librariesList LibrariesAList 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 | |||
| 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'free' scope and hosted-server context, but discloses no additional behaviors like pagination or rate limits. This is sufficient for a simple list operation.
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: the first states the purpose clearly, the second gives a usage tip. No filler or redundant 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?
Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the list's content ('free icon libraries') without needing to describe any parameter syntax.
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 'list' with a clear resource 'free icon libraries' and context ('hosted Supericons MCP server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on individual icons, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 advises use before filtering by library and when users ask about supported libraries. This provides clear context, though it does not name alternative tools directly or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preview_iconsPreview IconsARefine an icon result set or preview known icon refs returned by another Supericons tool. Use search_icons first for normal icon requests. Long icon lists are accepted and safely truncated to 12. Returns ready-to-use Markdown, a hosted preview fallback, a direct PNG image URL, and, when requested, an MCP image contact sheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Requested inline icon count. Values outside 1 to 12 are safely clamped with a warning. Numeric strings are accepted. | |
| query | No | Optional search query to preview visually, for example "license plate recognition camera scan car". | |
| style | No | Optional style preference. Unsupported values are ignored with a warning. | any |
| locale | No | Optional locale for multilingual search terms. Supported values: zh-Hans, zh-Hant, ja, ko, es, de, pt, ar, hi, vi, th. Unsupported values are ignored with a warning. | |
| 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. Arrays, a single ref, and comma-separated refs are accepted. Up to 100 are accepted, 24 appear on the browser preview, and 12 are rendered inline. Larger lists are safely truncated with a warning. | |
| include_image | No | When true, include a PNG contact sheet as MCP image content. Boolean strings are accepted. A preview_url is always returned. |
| 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. |
| warnings | No | Unsupported optional inputs that were safely ignored. |
| image_url | No | Direct PNG URL for clients or Markdown renderers that can show remote images. |
| next_step | Yes | Useful next action for the caller. |
| 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. |
| rendered_count | Yes | Number of icons rendered in the inline preview. |
| truncated_from | No | Original icon ref count when the input was truncated. |
| client_display_note | Yes | Plain-language note for clients that do not render images inline. |
| browser_preview_count | Yes | Number of accepted icon refs available at preview_url. |
| suggested_response_markdown | No | Ready-to-use answer with the image, refs, and browser fallback link. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses truncation behavior for long icon lists and outlines the return format (Markdown, hosted preview, PNG URL, optional MCP contact sheet), adding useful 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-load purpose, provide usage guidance, and summarize outputs without unnecessary fluff.
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 a rich schema and output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and key behaviors, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 descriptive parameter details, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds a small amount of context by referencing icon_refs, but the schema already covers semantics.
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 a specific action ('Refine an icon result set or preview known icon refs') and resource ('icon refs returned by another Supericons tool'), distinguishing it from search_icons which is the primary request tool.
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 instructs to use search_icons first for normal icon requests, positioning this tool as a refinement/preview step. Also implies it works with refs from other Supericons tools, providing clear when-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_iconsRecommend IconsAInspectRecommend a coherent icon set for up to 20 named UI slots in one call. Uses task context to narrow ambiguous meanings. When context is insufficient, returns needs_clarification with labeled interpretation options instead of guessing. Invalid inputs and service failures return a plain-language reason and a next step instead of a bare protocol error. Returns one recommendation and optional alternatives for each resolved 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 | No | Overall UI task, for example "choose icons for an AI dashboard sidebar" or "select bottom navigation icons for a finance app". Missing task text returns a structured recovery message. | |
| slots | No | List of 1 to 20 UI slots to fill, for example ["model", "prompt", "dataset", "evaluation"]. A single string is accepted as one slot. Larger lists return a structured split instruction. | |
| style | No | Optional style preference. Unsupported values are ignored with a warning. | any |
| locale | No | Optional locale for multilingual slot labels. Unsupported values are ignored with a warning. | |
| 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: plan, assets, or full. Unsupported values use plan with a warning. | plan |
| limit_per_slot | No | Number of choices per slot. Values outside 1 to 5 are clamped with a warning. Numeric strings are accepted. | |
| include_query_frame | No | Optional public-safe diagnostics for query understanding. Boolean strings are accepted. Leave false for normal compact responses. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | Stable error code for programmatic recovery. |
| hint | No | Plain-language recovery instruction. |
| task | Yes | Original UI task. |
| error | No | Plain-language reason the recommendation did not complete. |
| style | No | Style preference used for recommendations. |
| status | No | HTTP status from a hosted dependency failure. |
| details | No | Structured limits or failure details. |
| library | No | Library filter used for recommendations, if provided. |
| results | Yes | Recommended icon choices grouped by requested UI slot. |
| warnings | No | Unsupported optional inputs that were safely ignored or clamped. |
| next_step | No | Useful next action for the caller. |
| retryable | No | Whether a corrected or later request may succeed. |
| 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. |
| response_mode | Yes | Response size mode used for this recommendation. |
| search_runtime | No | Search execution path used for this recommendation. |
| all_slots_resolved | Yes | Whether every requested slot received a recommendation without clarification. |
| clarification_slots | Yes | Slots that need the caller to choose an interpretation. |
| needs_clarification | Yes | Whether one or more ambiguous slots require more context. |
| retry_after_seconds | No | Seconds to wait before retrying a rate-limited recommendation. |
| fallback_recommended | Yes | Whether the caller should consider direct search or clarification. |
| low_confidence_slots | Yes | Slots whose result is missing or has low confidence. |
| suggested_response_markdown | No | Plain-language explanation suitable for the agent response. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It states behavior for insufficient context ('returns needs_clarification with labeled interpretation options instead of guessing'), error handling ('plain-language reason and a next step'), and a specific disambiguation ('Library key si means Supericons, not Simple Icons'). This goes beyond annotations and adds significant behavioral insights.
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 five sentences, each carrying essential information without fluff. It front-loads the primary action, then covers edge cases, return values, and a key library clarification. No sentence is wasted, making it dense yet structured.
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's complexity (8 parameters, no required params), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return behavior, error handling, clarification requests, and a library naming caveat. An output schema exists, so it does not need to explain return structure. The description addresses both typical and edge-case usage.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond schema by noting the slot limit ('up to 20 named UI slots'), clarifying the 'si' library key, and mentioning response modes and alternatives. This added context raises it above the baseline.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Recommend a coherent icon set for up to 20 named UI slots in one call.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_icons or get_icon by emphasizing the 'coherent set' and 'up to 20 named UI slots' scope.
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 implies usage context: use when you need multiple cohesive icon recommendations in one call. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the sibling list in context signals provides some differentiation. The phrase 'coherent icon set' and 'up to 20 named UI slots' effectively frames its intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_iconsSearch IconsAInspectUse this as the main icon tool. Search 20,000+ curated SVG icons across 11 libraries by meaning, label, visual description, tags, and synonyms. When matches exist, the response includes a paste-ready suggested answer, a direct preview image, and Markdown that can show the image in the final reply. When no supported match exists, it returns an honest structured no-result with a next step and no fabricated icon. If you choose a library yourself, use prefer. Use strict only when the user explicitly requires that library. Library key si means Supericons, not Simple Icons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of icons from 1 to 50. Numeric strings are accepted. | |
| 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. Unsupported values are ignored with a warning. | any |
| locale | No | Optional locale for multilingual search terms. Supported values: zh-Hans, zh-Hant, ja, ko, es, de, pt, ar, hi, vi, th. Unsupported values are ignored with a warning. | |
| library | No | Optional library key only when the user named a library. Omit it to search all libraries. Do not use all as a 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. | |
| library_mode | No | Optional library behavior. Omit a self-chosen library and search all, or use prefer with that library. Use strict only when the user explicitly requires the named library. All searches every eligible library. Unsupported or incomplete combinations are safely normalized with a warning. | |
| include_query_frame | No | Optional public-safe diagnostics for query understanding. Boolean strings are accepted. Leave false for normal compact responses. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | Stable code for a structured no-result. |
| hint | No | Plain-language recovery hint for a structured no-result. |
| error | No | Plain-language error for a structured no-result. |
| status | No | HTTP status from an upstream search failure. |
| details | No | Structured rate-limit or upstream failure details. |
| results | Yes | Matching icons with SVG code and semantic guidance. |
| warnings | No | Unsupported optional inputs that were safely ignored. |
| image_url | No | Direct PNG URL when usable icons exist. |
| next_step | Yes | Useful next action for the caller. |
| retryable | No | Whether changing the query or filters may produce a result. |
| limit_scope | No | Allowance scope reported by a rate limit. |
| preview_url | No | Browser URL for visual inspection of this search result set. |
| query_frame | No | Optional public-safe query understanding diagnostics. |
| library_mode | Yes | Library behavior used for this search. |
| outcome_type | No | Whether this response contains results, an honest no-match, or a tool failure. |
| result_count | No | Number of verified icons returned by this search. |
| markdown_image | No | Ready-made Markdown image when usable icons exist. |
| search_runtime | No | Search execution path used for this request. |
| top_result_ref | No | Top ordered icon ref when results exist. |
| requested_library | Yes | Preferred or required library, when supplied. |
| retry_after_seconds | No | Seconds to wait before retrying a rate-limited search. |
| result_interpretation | No | Plain-language guidance for interpreting this result count and outcome. |
| suggested_response_markdown | Yes | Compact answer that accurately reflects this response. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false/neutral (not readOnly, not destructive), so they don't restrict behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no fabricated icons when no match exists, suggested answer format, preview image, and Markdown embedding behavior. It doesn't describe rate limits or auth, but for a search tool this is solid disclosure of its honest no-result 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?
A single well-organized paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place covering scope, match behavior, no-match behavior, and library-selection rules. Slightly dense but informative; could arguably be split into structured guidance but remains efficient.
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 7 parameters, an output schema, and neutral annotations, the description covers the crucial decision logic: when to be the tool, library mode selection, disambiguation of si, and no-fabrication honesty. The output schema handles return values. The main gaps are minor (no explicit mention of pagination/next-step details in output), making this near-complete.
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 100%, so the schema documents every parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by guiding library selection strategy (prefer/strict/all) and clarifying that 'si' means Supericons, not Simple Icons — critical disambiguation not evident from schema alone. The description also clarifies behavior of library_mode and library interplay beyond their individual definitions.
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 states a specific verb+resource (search icons), scoped to 20,000+ SVG icons across 11 libraries by meaning/label/visual/tags/synonyms. Clear and distinguishes from siblings like get_icon, list_libraries, preview_icons, and recommend_icons by positioning itself as 'the main icon tool' — differentiating its role.
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 when to use (main icon tool), how matches behave (paste-ready answer, preview, Markdown), no-match behavior (honest no-result, no fabrication), and library strategy (use prefer, use strict only when user requires; si means Supericons not Simple Icons). This far exceeds typical guidance.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.