list_surfaces
List configured surfaces and target URLs
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
List configured surfaces and target URLs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation, which is non-destructive, but does not elaborate on output format or any side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words or redundant information. It fully conveys the essential purpose in an efficient manner.
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?
The tool is very simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description clearly states what is listed, which is largely sufficient. It could benefit from a hint about the return structure, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete by default. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed, giving the baseline of 4 for empty parameter sets.
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 clearly states the tool lists configured surfaces and target URLs, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redeem_code and run_verdict, which perform different actions.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It merely states the function without context or exclusions.
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 has a distinct purpose: list_surfaces for reading configuration, redeem_code for obtaining an API key, and run_verdict for performing the core action. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_, redeem_, run_), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.
3 tools is appropriately scoped for a focused utility server. Each tool is non-trivial and contributes to a clear workflow, with no redundancy or bloat.
The core workflow (listing surfaces, redeeming codes, running verdicts) is covered, but some related operations like retrieving past verdicts or managing surfaces are absent. Still, the surface seems functional for its intended purpose.