get_iconRetrieve SVG markup for an Iconify icon by family:name so you can insert it directly into HTML or JSX.
Retrieve SVG markup for one Iconify icon identified by family:name (such as 'lucide:rocket') for use in HTML or JSX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Icon identifier in family:name format. | |
| height | No | Normalized icon height (default 64). |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the response is SVG markup and implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not address error behavior for unknown icons, authentication, rate limits, or whether markup is a raw string versus wrapped object.
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?
The definition is a single tight sentence with the retrieval action and identifier format front-loaded. Every clause adds useful context without redundancy.
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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned (SVG markup) and the intended consumer context (HTML/JSX). It stops short of covering failure modes or return structure, but those are secondary for this tool type.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'family:name' format with an example ('lucide:rocket'), but does not explain the height parameter or its default beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('SVG markup for one Iconify icon') with an exact identifier format and example. It implicitly contrasts with search-style siblings like find_icons by specifying 'one' icon identified by 'family:name', but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The intended use ('for use in HTML or JSX') is stated, which gives context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of find_icons or other asset tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.