Noun MCP Server

get_icon

Retrieve detailed metadata and a temporary SVG icon URL for a specific icon. Ideal when search results lack sufficient details, with the URL expiring after one hour.

Instructions

Get extra details for one icon, including a temporary SVG icon_url (expires in 1 hour). This is an expensive icon call (FREE trial: 150/day and 150/month). Skip it when search_icons already has the metadata you need.

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": {
      "icon_id": "<icon_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_icon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`icon_id`	Yes	Unique icon ID
`thumbnail_size`	No	Thumbnail size in pixels

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses that the icon_url is temporary and expires in 1 hour, and that the call is expensive with specific quota caps. It doesn't describe every behavioral edge case, but the key constraints are surfaced.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and temporary URL detail are front-loaded, followed directly by important usage and cost guidance.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what it does, a key return value, cost implications, and when to avoid it. It doesn't explain the complete response structure, but the core decision-making context is present.

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 both icon_id and thumbnail_size are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters behave or interact, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the primary action: getting extra details for a single icon, including a temporary SVG icon_url. It also hints at a distinction from search_icons by noting when not to use it, though 'extra details' remains somewhat vague about the full set of fields returned.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly warns that this is an expensive icon call with daily/monthly free-trial limits and explicitly says to skip it when search_icons already has the needed metadata. This gives the agent a clear decision rule and a named alternative.

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

Deploy Server