optimize_svgOptimize/clean SVG markup (SVGO). Pure markup transformation — nothing is executed or stored. Returns minified SVG plus before/after sizes. Rate limit: 30 calls/min per IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| svg | Yes | SVG source. Max 500,000 chars. | |
| preset | No | Optimization preset (default balanced). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable specifics: nothing is executed or stored, minified SVG plus before/after sizes are returned, and there is a 30 calls/min/IP rate limit. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.
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: purpose first, then safety/output/rate limit. No wasted words; each clause provides distinct 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 2-parameter tool with robust annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, safety, return value, and rate limiting. It could mention when to choose this over sibling tools, but that gap is captured in usage_guidelines; overall the tool is well-specified.
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 svg and preset each having descriptions and preset also having an enum with default. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics (e.g., preset behavior or input constraints), so it does not need to compensate; baseline 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 opens with 'Optimize/clean SVG markup (SVGO)', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies a markup optimization tool. This distinguishes it from siblings like svg_to_datauri (format conversion) and minify_code (general minification).
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 does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. 'Pure markup transformation — nothing is executed or stored' implies a safe-use context, but the agent must infer when optimize_svg is preferred over minify_code or svg_to_datauri.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation within the color, font, or code utility domains. Descriptions clearly differentiate retrieval, search, and action tools, so an agent can reliably select the right one without ambiguity.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but there's a mix of direct verb_noun patterns (check_contrast, extract_colors) and a get_ prefix for retrieval tools (get_font, get_palette). The inconsistency is minor and the pattern remains predictable overall.
15 tools is at the upper end of the well-scoped range, but each tool serves a clear, distinct purpose across three focused domains (fonts, colors, code). No tool feels redundant or unnecessary for the server's mission.
The server provides a comprehensive lifecycle for its domains: font search, metadata, file access, CSS generation, and image recognition; color extraction, naming, shading, contrast checking, and palette search; and code detection, conversion, and minification. No obvious gaps exist.