Noun Project MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools like 'check_usage' (API monitoring), 'get_collection' (collection retrieval), 'get_download_url' (icon download configuration), 'get_icon' (icon metadata), 'icon_autocomplete' (search suggestions), 'search_collections' (collection search), and 'search_icons' (icon search) target specific, non-overlapping operations in the Noun Project domain.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case throughout. Examples include 'check_usage', 'get_collection', 'search_icons', and 'icon_autocomplete', with verbs like 'check', 'get', and 'search' applied predictably to relevant nouns, making the set highly readable and systematic.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with The Noun Project API. Each tool earns its place by covering essential operations such as usage checking, collection and icon retrieval, search, and download management, without being overly sparse or bloated for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides strong coverage for core Noun Project workflows, including search, retrieval, and download of icons and collections, plus API usage monitoring. A minor gap exists in CRUD operations for user-specific resources like managing personal collections or favorites, but agents can effectively work around this for most use cases.
Average 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return content but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value without any unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context.
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 the complexity of a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format beyond high-level mentions, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results like metadata structure or icon data, which is inadequate for effective tool use.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, as the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default values or usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('collection by ID'), and mentions what it returns ('collection metadata and the icons it contains'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'search_collections' or 'get_icon', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_collection' over 'search_collections' for finding collections or 'get_icon' for individual icons, nor does it discuss prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return content ('metadata, creator info, tags, and download URLs') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and return details added efficiently. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and output. It could be slightly improved by integrating usage context, but it avoids waste and is well-structured.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it's not entirely incomplete.
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 both parameters ('icon_id' and 'thumbnail_size') with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific icon by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('icon'), and identifier method ('by its ID'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_collection' or 'search_icons', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_collection' for collection-level data or 'search_icons' for broader queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement, lacking explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('list of collections') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a search tool with multiple parameters.
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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and outcome. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters like pagination.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the behavioral aspects (e.g., how pagination works with 'prev_page' and 'next_page'), return format details, or error cases, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate this search tool effectively.
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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying search functionality, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for collections') and resource ('on The Noun Project'), with the outcome ('Returns a list of collections matching the search term'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_icons' by specifying collections, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_collection' or others, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_icons' or 'get_collection'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually behaves.
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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words while covering the main filtering capabilities. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the core purpose from the filtering features.
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?
For a search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (icon metadata, thumbnails, download URLs), how results are structured, or important behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, users lack crucial information about what to expect from this tool.
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 description mentions filtering by style, line weight, and public domain status, which maps to some parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for icons') and the resource ('on The Noun Project'), which provides specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'icon_autocomplete' or 'get_icon', which might also involve icon retrieval operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions filtering capabilities but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'icon_autocomplete' or 'get_icon'. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool provides 'suggestions' and is 'useful for helping users discover related terms,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There's no unnecessary information or repetition, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage guidance more seamlessly, but overall it's well-structured.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and utility, but without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in all contexts.
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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get autocomplete suggestions') and resource ('icon search terms'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'search_icons' or 'get_icon', which might offer similar search-related functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 implied usage guidance by stating it's 'useful for helping users discover related terms,' suggesting it should be used for search assistance. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_icons' or 'get_icon,' and doesn't specify any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Check', 'Returns') and specifies the type of information returned ('monthly quota information including usage count and remaining requests'). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this counts against rate limits itself, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 is perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second specifies the return information. No wasted words, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a basic read operation. It explains what information is returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, for a usage/limits tool, it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases (monitoring, planning requests) or behavioral constraints. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is valuable context. This earns a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools that don't mislead about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check current API usage and limits' specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('API usage and limits'), and 'Returns monthly quota information...' adds detail about what information is provided. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools (none listed are usage/limit tools), so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency of use, or contextual triggers. While there are no obvious sibling alternatives for usage checking, the description lacks any usage context beyond the basic purpose.
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the tool is for downloading icons with customization, supports specific formats, and has a free API limitation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the download URL entails (e.g., expiration, access controls). For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important context (formats and API limitation). Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes, but it remains efficient and clear.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose, formats, and a free API limitation, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or what the output (download URL) entails. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output information, this is a minimal viable description, leaving the agent to infer or handle unknowns.
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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'custom color and size options' and 'Supports SVG and PNG formats,' which are already covered in the schema's descriptions and enum. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a download URL for an icon with custom color and size options. Supports SVG and PNG formats.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('download URL for an icon'), and key features (color, size, formats). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_icon' or 'search_icons', which might offer overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 some implied usage context: it mentions 'Free API access is limited to public domain icons only,' which hints at when to use it (for public domain icons) and potential limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_icon' or 'search_icons,' nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond the free API note. This leaves gaps in guidance for the agent.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![noun-project-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sgup/noun-project-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sgup/noun-project-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![noun-project-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sgup/noun-project-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/sgup/noun-project-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/sgup/noun-project-mcp'

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