surge-mcp-server

by DLYZZT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

surge_test_policy

Test Surge proxy policies against a specified URL to verify routing rules and policy effectiveness.

Instructions

Test policies with a specific URL

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "surge_test_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The URL to test policies against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose what 'testing' entails (e.g., result format, side effects, or error behavior). The agent cannot infer if this modifies state or just checks something.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise at one sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it may be under-specified; a slightly longer description with behavioral details would be more helpful without being verbose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description only partially covers what the agent needs. Missing return value information or behavioral context makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% with a clear description for the URL parameter. The description reinforces that the URL is used for testing, but adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tests policies with a specific URL, using a verb+resource structure. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like surge_list_policies or surge_get_policy_group, which focus on listing or retrieving rather than testing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., surge_list_policies for inspection). No mention of prerequisites or context. The agent lacks information on decision points.

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