find_surfaceGiven what someone wants to do ("rotate a webhook secret", "invite an administrator", "why can't I see Hierarchy"), return the pages where it happens, ranked, each with its menu path, the capability that opens it, and its guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What the person wants to do, in their words. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a lookup tool and not contradicted. The description goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the return shape — ranked pages, each with menu path, opening capability, and guide — which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention result caps or what happens with a zero-hit query.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the input and immediately followed by the return contract. The inline examples earn their space by showing query syntax, and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers both input semantics and the shape of each result, which is most of what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain: no note on result limits, ranking criteria, or behavior on no matches.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'What the person wants to do, in their words.' The description reinforces this with concrete examples, including a question-form query, which usefully implies that keyword-style input is not required. That is a modest addition on top of a fully documented schema, so a 3 rather than a 4.
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: given a natural-language goal, return ranked pages plus their menu path, capability, and guide. That distinguishes it from list_surfaces (enumeration) and get_guide (retrieval of one guide) by implication, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 parenthetical examples ('rotate a webhook secret', 'why can't I see Hierarchy') effectively demonstrate the intended query shape and indirectly signal that this is a natural-language intent search rather than a keyword lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to explain_capability or list_surfaces when this tool is the wrong choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.