Fetch multiple icons in one request to retrieve up to 50 icons at once for batch icon retrieval.
Fetch multiple icons in a single request. Efficient for getting several icons at once. Maximum 50 icons per request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icons | Yes | Array of icon requests | |
| format | No | svg | |
| optimize | No | Optimize all SVGs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral constraint (maximum 50 icons per request), but says nothing about return format, error behavior on invalid names, or partial-failure handling for a batch call.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no padding. The second sentence slightly restates the first ('efficient for getting several icons at once' echoes 'multiple icons'), costing a little density.
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 simple batch-read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the batch limit adequately but omits any hint about response shape or the role of format/optimize. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.
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 67%, so the schema already documents the name example and the optimize flag. The description's 'maximum 50 icons' adds a real constraint on the icons array, but format and optimize remain unexplained beyond their schema entries.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch multiple icons in a single request') and the batch scope immediately distinguishes it from the single-icon sibling get_icon. It never names that sibling explicitly, but the 'multiple' framing makes the distinction clear without opening schemas.
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?
'Efficient for getting several icons at once' implies the batching use case versus get_icon, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.