Gemini MCP Server

Generate SVG Graphic

generate_svg

Generate scalable vector graphics (SVG) for diagrams, illustrations, icons, and data visualizations using Gemini. Produces clean, production-ready code with inline preview.

Instructions

Generate scalable vector graphics (SVG) using Gemini. Creates clean, production-ready SVG code for diagrams, illustrations, icons, and data visualizations. Returns inline preview with SVG viewer.

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": {
      "prompt": "<prompt>"
    },
    "name": "generate_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prompt`	Yes	Description of the SVG graphic to generate
`width`	No	SVG width in pixels (default: 800)
`height`	No	SVG height in pixels (default: 600)
`style`	No	Visual style: technical (diagrams), artistic (illustrations), minimal (simple), data-viz (charts)	technical
`model`	No	Gemini model to use (defaults to configured default)
`outputPath`	No	Optional file path to save the SVG (e.g. C:/output/diagram.svg)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.3.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description mentions using Gemini and returning an inline preview, which provides moderate transparency. However, it omits details like network usage, authorization, or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description mentions the return type (inline preview with SVG viewer) and covers the basic purpose, but lacks details on output format and error handling.

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%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.

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 clearly specifies the tool generates SVG graphics using Gemini for multiple use cases like diagrams and icons, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_image (raster) and generate_landing_page.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like generate_image or when not to use it.

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