Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tech-icons

tech-icons

by zhiweio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_icon

Retrieve full details for a specific cloud technology icon by its canonical ID. Access over 3100 icons from AWS, Azure, GCP, and others for presentations.

Instructions

Get full details for a specific icon by its canonical ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_icon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIcon ID (e.g., aws/compute/lambda)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.5

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose traits. It only says 'Get full details' without specifying what details are included, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond basic operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no extraneous information. Highly concise.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and output schema, description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning that it returns icon metadata (e.g., name, vendor, category). Output schema partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the id parameter with an example. The description adds 'by its canonical ID' which reinforces meaning but does not add significant new semantics beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'full details for a specific icon', and constraint 'by its canonical ID'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like compare_icons, list_*, and search_icons.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific icon ID and need details, but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The context from sibling names aids differentiation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools