Skip to main content
Glama
curlymolelabs

Supericons

by curlymolelabs
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.4.22

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool serves a distinct purpose: inspecting converter options, previewing icons, and converting SVG to PNG. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: inspect_, preview_, convert_. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is appropriately scoped for icon-related tasks. It covers configuration, preview, and conversion without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is missing a search_icons tool, which is referenced in the preview_icons description as a prerequisite. This gap limits the workflow and indicates incompleteness for the domain.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic conversion action and does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, permissions, or output characteristics.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is very short with two sentences, no redundancy. However, it could be improved by adding more detail without becoming verbose. It is appropriately sized but lacks depth.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with some defaults and enums, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or limitations, leaving the agent underinformed.

    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 all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, meeting baseline expectations.

    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 states 'Convert an SVG string to PNG', which is specific with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'inspect_converter_options' and 'preview_icons' by focusing on a direct conversion action.

    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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'Pro workflow tool' hints at advanced use but lacks clarity on context or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as listing options, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any side effects. The behavior is straightforward but not fully transparent.

    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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second adds useful context about it being a Pro workflow tool. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list or object) or how to interpret the options and workflow hints. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks completeness for agents needing to parse the response.

    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?

    The input schema has one parameter (locale) with 100% schema coverage, meaning the schema adequately describes it. The parameter description is included in the schema but not reiterated in the main description. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'Converter MCP options', workflow hints, and recommended starting combinations. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'preview_icons' and 'convert_svg_to_png' by focusing on inspecting configuration rather than previewing or converting.

    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 implies that this tool is used to inspect options and workflow hints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the siblings or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses truncation of lists to 12, clamping of limit, acceptance of icon_refs up to 100, and returned items. It lacks explicit read-only or auth info, but the preview nature implies no 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?

    Extremely concise: two sentences front-loading purpose and usage, then listing capabilities. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

    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?

    Without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return types (preview page, PNG URL, Markdown snippet, contact sheet). It covers main use cases and edge cases like truncation. Could add example usage but is adequate for an agent.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral context (truncation, clamping) but largely repeats schema info. No new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 states the tool refines icon result sets or previews known icon refs, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from the sibling search_icons by advising to use that first for normal requests.

    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?

    Explicitly says 'Use search_icons first for normal icon requests,' providing a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not address exclusions for its sibling tools inspect_converter_options and convert_svg_to_png.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

supericons MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

supericons MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/curlymolelabs/supericons'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server