Noun MCP Server

icon_autocomplete

Resolve ambiguous icon search terms by getting autocomplete suggestions before performing a full search. Accepts a query and returns up to 10 suggested terms.

Instructions

Autocomplete icon search terms (max 10). Cheap service call — use before searching if the query is ambiguous.

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": "icon_autocomplete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Number of suggestions (maximum 10)
`query`	Yes	Search term for autocomplete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'Cheap service call' which is a performance trait, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or other side effects. It adds some value beyond the schema by hinting at cost, but a 3 is fair for not going further.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical usage hint. Every sentence adds value without fluff, making it highly efficient for the agent.

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 autocomplete tool with fully documented schema, the description provides usage timing and performance context. It lacks details about return format, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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 schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds the max limit context (max 10) which matches the schema's maximum of 10, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 a specific verb ('Autocomplete') and resource ('icon search terms'), and implicitly scopes it to autocomplete functionality. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_icons, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'use before searching if the query is ambiguous.' It indicates when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear and actionable, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server