Combine multiple icons into a single SVG sprite sheet for web apps, simplifying multi-icon usage and reducing requests.
Generate an SVG sprite sheet combining multiple icons. Useful for web apps that need multiple icons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icons | Yes | List of icon names to include in sprite | |
| format | No | svg | |
| library | Yes | Icon library to use | |
| optimize | No | Optimize the sprite SVG |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions only that it generates a sprite sheet and is useful for web apps; it omits critical details such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles missing icons, whether it overwrites existing files, or what the output format actually is beyond 'SVG'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds context but is somewhat redundant with the first, though not wasteful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (2 required), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, return values, and error conditions, leaving the agent with significant gaps to call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; for example, it doesn't explain the 'icons' list format, the 'library' selection criteria, or the 'format' enum beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('SVG sprite sheet combining multiple icons'), and adds a use-case note. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_libraries, search_icons, and optimize_svg by focusing on sprite sheet creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an implied usage context ('Useful for web apps that need multiple icons'), but does not specify when to use it versus alternatives like get_multiple_icons or optimize_svg. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.