icon-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_icon

Generate custom icons as PNG, ICO, or ICNS files with customizable shapes, styles, gradients, text, and shadows. Save directly to a specified path using local rendering, no external APIs required.

Instructions

Render a single icon and save it to out_path.

Parameters

out_path : str Destination file path. Extension determines the format unless fmt is given. Supported extensions: .png (default), .ico, .icns. text : str Short label drawn in the center (initials, single glyph, or emoji). style : str One of gradient / solid / outlined / shape / mono. size : int Edge length in pixels, 16..2048. shape : str One of circle / square / rounded / triangle / hexagon / diamond. fg_color, bg_color, bg_color_2, border_color : str CSS-like color strings (#RRGGBB or named colors). gradient_angle : float Gradient direction in degrees (0 = left→right, 90 = top→bottom). font_scale : float Text height as fraction of the icon size (0.05..1.2). corner_radius : float Corner radius fraction for shape='rounded' (0..0.5). border_width : float Stroke width as a fraction of the icon size (0..0.15). shadow : bool Add a soft drop shadow behind the icon silhouette. fmt : str, optional Force output format (png / ico / icns).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`fmt`	No
`size`	No
`text`	No
`shape`	No	rounded
`style`	No	gradient
`shadow`	No
`bg_color`	No	#4F8DFD
`fg_color`	No	#FFFFFF
`out_path`	Yes
`bg_color_2`	No	#8E5BFF
`font_scale`	No
`border_color`	No	#FFFFFF
`border_width`	No
`corner_radius`	No
`gradient_angle`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the output side effect, extension/format resolution, and parameter effects. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, return value, or error behavior, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining space is a dense, well-organized parameter list. For 15 parameters, every line adds needed information and there is no filler.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a complex 15-parameter tool with no output schema: it covers all parameter semantics, defaults, ranges, and output formats. It only misses a few contextual details such as overwrite behavior, return value, and explicit guidance on choosing among sibling tools.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: every parameter has meaningful semantics, including enum values for style and shape, numeric ranges for size/font_scale/corner_radius/border_width, color syntax, gradient-angle orientation, and fmt override behavior.

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 opening sentence names a specific action and resource: 'Render a single icon and save it to out_path.' The qualifier 'single' and the file destination clearly separate it from generate_icon_set and generate_icon_base64, so an agent can identify the tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

There is no explicit mention of sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions. However, the phrasing 'single icon' and 'save it to out_path' implies the file-based single-icon use case, which gives some routing guidance by contrast with the base64 and icon-set siblings.

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

Deploy Server