infyicon-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey key output traits: 'direct PNG download URLs', sizes ranging 16-512px, and 'transparent background'. However, it does not mention any error behavior, rate limits, or whether an invalid id returns no URLs or fails, so it falls short of full 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?

A single sentence conveys the tool's core purpose, output type, size range, transparency trait, and input requirement without redundancy. It is front-loaded and wastes no 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?

For a small, well-documented two-parameter tool with high schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It omits an explicit return-shape explanation for the 'all sizes' case, but since output schema is absent and the schema already covers the optional size parameter, the description plus schema should allow an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'id' and 'size' already documented in the input schema. The description adds the PNG/transparency context but does not elaborate on parameter behaviors beyond what the enum and property descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('direct PNG download URLs'), and a scope ('for an Infyicon icon id'). The explicit mention of 'PNG' naturally distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_icon_svg.

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 makes it obvious that the tool is for retrieving PNG download URLs and implicitly not for SVG retrieval, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that the operation returns ready-to-embed SVG markup rather than a URL or binary file. It does not describe error conditions or authentication, but for a simple one-parameter fetch this is acceptable.

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 with no filler: the action and output type are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides the necessary id-format and upstream source guidance. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is needed: how to get the id, what the tool returns, and in what form. There is no missing information that would prevent correct 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the same id format and example. The description adds a useful provenance hint ('get ids from search_icons'), but most parameter meaning is already present in the input 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 clearly states the specific action and resource: getting the full SVG markup of an Infyicon icon by id. It includes the id format and names the sibling tool (search_icons) as the source, making it easy to distinguish from get_icon_png and the other siblings.

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 tells callers to get ids from search_icons and implies the tool is the right choice when SVG source code is needed. It does not explicitly say to use get_icon_png for raster output, but the context makes that distinction reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it delivers key behavioral context: the tool returns categories ordered by popularity, includes icon counts, and category slugs map to the URL pattern provided. It does not mention failure modes or pagination, but for such a simple list tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The first front-loads the core purpose and result content, the second adds a valuable URL pattern. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description plus the schema fully covers what the agent needs: what it lists, what each item includes, the URL pattern, and the optional limit. A bit more detail on result shape would make it 5, but it is otherwise 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?

The only parameter 'limit' is already fully described in the schema with min, max, and default value. The description itself may not mention the parameter, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline applies and no critical semantic information is missing.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Infyicon icon categories'), with the scope qualifier 'most popular' and the output content 'icon counts'. It makes the tool distinct from sibling icon-download/search tools without needing to name them.

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 the tool is for browsing category listings, especially popular ones, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to search_icons or other siblings. The intended use is inferable rather than fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explains that the tool returns icon URLs rather than raw image files, describes each style visually, states the catalog size, and notes the attribution requirement. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or search semantics, but for a non-destructive discovery tool this is strong disclosure.

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 compact, front-loaded, and free of filler. Two sentences communicate the scope, result shape, style options, and legal usage condition. Every clause 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, this description is complete: it gives the exact search scope, response contents, style meanings, and attribution requirement. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 covers all parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each style looks like (outline, fill, color-outline, color-fill) and clarifying what a search result contains. It does not deep-dive query or limit semantics, but those are already documented in 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search 161,000+ free Infyicon vector icons.' It clearly states what the tool returns (icon id, style, page URL, SVG and PNG URLs) and distinguishes it from the sibling get_icon_png/get_icon_svg tools, which target specific downloads rather than discovery.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: searching an icon library for matches across multiple styles. It implies that this is the discovery step, with sibling tools presumably used for downloading a specific icon, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining side effects and limits. It implies a read-only lookup by saying 'look up' and shows the expected result pattern, but it does not disclose match semantics, such as exact match, partial search, case-insensitivity, what happens on no match, or return shape. It adds some behavioral context through the usage example, but important traits remain unspecified.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that deliver purpose, a usage example, and the needed stylesheet link. There is no unnecessary wording, and the core purpose is 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 definition works for a one-parameter lookup tool because the schema is clear and the usage example helps the agent call it correctly. However, the description does not explain the result format, whether multiple matches are returned, or how this lookup differs from search_icons. Without an output schema or note differentiating it from sibling tools, an agent could still be uncertain about invocation expectations.

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 single parameter `name` is completely documented in the input schema with the description 'Glyph name to search' and a couple of examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond that, so the 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 clearly states the action is 'Look up CSS class names in the Infyicon UI webfont' and gives a concrete usage example with an <i> tag. It specifically identifies the resource (CSS class names) and the data source (61,000+ glyph webfont), distinguishing it from sibling tools that return PNG, SVG, or category lists.

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 tells the agent how to use an output like <i class='ii-r-home'></i> and supplies the stylesheet URL, but it does not say when to choose this tool over search_icons, get_icon_png, or get_icon_svg. The 'when to use' context is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.