get_html_snippetReturns the modern minimal snippet for favicons, plus placement guidance. Use when the favicon files already exist and only the HTML wiring is needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pwa | No | Site ships PWA icons + manifest (default true) | |
| google_96 | No | Site ships favicon-96x96.png (default true) | |
| has_svg_icon | No | Site ships an /icon.svg (default true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a snippet and placement guidance, which is a read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the snippet is customizable, whether it checks for file existence, or any side effects. The description is honest but minimal, earning a 3.
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 waste. The core function is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated succinctly. Every word 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 simple read-only tool with three optional boolean parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what the output looks like (the snippet itself), but the title and description already imply that. The usage guidance is strong, and the parameter schema covers the rest. A 4 is appropriate because it's slightly above average but not perfect.
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 three boolean parameters. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'modern minimal' which implies defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's function: returning the modern minimal <head> snippet for favicons, plus placement guidance. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's for when favicon files already exist and only HTML wiring is needed, which differentiates it from generate_favicon and check_favicon.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the favicon files already exist and only the HTML wiring is needed.' This provides clear context and implies the alternative (generate_favicon) for when files don't exist. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to select correctly.
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.