asset-finder-mcp

search_logos

Search a company or brand name to retrieve high-quality PNG logos from 50,000+ brands, with customizable result limits.

Instructions

Search for brand and company logos. Returns high-quality PNG logos for 50,000+ brands. Requires LOGO_DEV_TOKEN env var for full functionality.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_logos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (default 5)
`query`	Yes	Brand or company name (e.g. 'Google', 'Microsoft', 'Stripe')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns high-quality PNG logos, has a large brand coverage, and requires a specific env var for full functionality. This provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'search' statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function and key attribute (logos), the second adds scale and a prerequisite. No wasteful words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, the schema covers parameters, and there is no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return format (PNG), coverage, and token requirement. It could mention how results are returned (e.g., URLs or binary data), but that is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as both query and limit have descriptive text. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('brand and company logos'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_icons, search_vectors, and search_stock_photos. It also adds context about output format (PNG) and scale (50,000+ brands).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: use this when needing brand/company logos. It also mentions a prerequisite (LOGO_DEV_TOKEN) for full functionality, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server