restore_surfaceBring a surface back to the registry, with its sheet and its alignment journal as they were. Call list_surfaces with deleted set to "only" to find the surfaces to bring back. Restoring a surface already in the registry answers the same.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surface_id | Yes | The UUID of the surface: call list_surfaces to find it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by stating 'bring back...as they were' and that restoring an already-registered surface returns the same. The description adds value by specifying what gets restored (sheet and alignment journal), though it could mention permissions or side effects.
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 description is two sentences long with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the action, prerequisites, and idempotent behavior.
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?
Given the single parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers how to find the input, what the tool restores, and the idempotent outcome, leaving no gaps for the agent.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter that has a clear description ('call list_surfaces to find it'). The tool description reinforces this by mentioning the same lookup step, but does not add new semantic meaning 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 title and description clearly state that the tool brings a surface back to the registry with its sheet and alignment journal. It distinguishes itself by specifying the restoration action and mentioning that restoring an already-registered surface returns the same, which avoids confusion with sibling tools like 'create_surface' or 'delete_surface'.
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 description explicitly instructs to call 'list_surfaces' with 'deleted' set to 'only' to find surfaces to restore, providing a clear prerequisite and alternative path. It also notes the idempotent behavior of restoring an already-present surface, giving precise usage guidance.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions go out of their way to separate near-neighbor concepts like surfaces vs corroborations and score series vs raw responses. A few related pairs (get_results/get_responses, get_credits/get_usage, create_surface/create_corroboration) could still be confused at a glance, so it is not a perfect 5.
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern across all 67 tools, with clear families like create_, update_, get_, list_, archive_, restore_, and delete_. Minor quirks such as topup_credits as one word do not break the overall uniformity.
67 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, even for a broad brand-monitoring domain. The surface is bloated with lifecycle variants per entity, and the sheer number makes the server hard to navigate and prompt against.
The server covers full lifecycles for projects, trackers, surfaces, corroborations, quests, logbook entries, keyword discoveries, competitor scans, link targets, sources, support, and billing. Archive/restore and soft-delete paths prevent dead ends, and nearly every obvious workflow has a corresponding tool.