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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds return detail (SVG code and semantic guidance) beyond annotations, without 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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no fluff. 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 rich annotations and output schema, description covers purpose, usage context, and return value adequately for a simple 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?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description restates need for known ID and library but adds no new meaning 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?
Description states 'Retrieve one exact SVG icon when the icon ID and library are already known.' It specifies verb, resource, and preconditions, and distinguishes sibling search_icons for concept-based queries.
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?
Clear guidance: use when ID and library known, otherwise use search_icons first. Explicitly mentions alternative tool.
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds 'free icon libraries', consistent with read-only behavior, but no further behavioral traits beyond 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?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous 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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description covers purpose and usage. Could mention output format but completeness is high given other structured fields.
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, schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param details, but baseline is 4 due to 0 parameters.
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 lists free icon libraries from the Supericons MCP server, distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_icon, recommend_icons, and 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 tells when to use: before filtering by library or when asked about supported libraries, providing clear context.
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 |
| 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. | |
| 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?
Annotations already convey readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. Description adds valuable context about returning one recommendation with optional alternatives and the notion of coherence, but does not contradict 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?
Two sentences covering purpose, usage, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?
With 5 parameters, output schema present, and siblings listed, the description covers the tool's role and output sufficiently. It mentions coherence, alternatives, and slot-wise recommendations, leaving no major gaps.
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 already documents all parameters. The description provides overall context (e.g., 'coherent icon set for named UI slots') but adds minimal specific parameter detail 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 verb 'recommend', resource 'icon set', and context 'product, app, dashboard, or navigation flow'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_icon (single icon) by emphasizing coherence across 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', which differentiates from single-icon or search tools. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
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+ free 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 |
| 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by noting the search scope (20,000+ icons, 10 libraries) and return content (SVG code, semantic guidance). It does not contradict 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?
Three sentences, no superfluous words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds essential 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 description covers the search behavior, parameter usage, and return values (SVG code, semantic guidance) sufficiently. Given the presence of an output schema, it is complete and leaves no critical gaps.
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%, providing baseline 3. The description enriches every parameter with practical usage examples and guidance: query examples, limit ranges for browsing vs. quick choices, style preference fallback, and library keys. This adds significant meaning 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?
The description uses specific verbs ('Search') and resource ('icons') and clearly scopes the operation to '20,000+ free icons across 10 libraries by meaning, label, visual description, tags, and synonyms.' This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_icon (retrieve by ID), list_libraries (list available libraries), and recommend_icons (recommend based on context).
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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user describes an icon concept such as...' and gives examples. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide the agent effectively.
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.