surfer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_surface_map

Generate a 3D surface map from a .grd grid file to visualize gridded terrain or data, with optional title, saved plot, and image output.

Instructions

Create a 3D surface view from a .grd grid.

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": {
      "grid_file": "<grid_file>"
    },
    "name": "create_surface_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`grid_file`	Yes
`save_plot`	No
`output_image`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether a document is opened or reused, whether the plot is displayed, or whether files are written. The presence of save_plot and output_image parameters implies possible filesystem writes, but this is never confirmed.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance above rather than from tight editing. Efficient in form, under-specified in substance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but for a tool with four parameters (three undocumented), no annotations, and likely file-writing side effects, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the two output-related parameters and whether a document is created.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description only clarifies that grid_file is a .grd file. Critically, the distinction between save_plot and output_image is left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess which one persists what.

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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (3D surface view) plus the required input format (.grd grid), which distinguishes it from create_contour_map and create_grid. The sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, but the '3D surface' qualifier is enough for an agent to pick it.

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 instead of create_contour_map, create_cross_section, or create_grid, and no preconditions such as the grid file needing to exist or a document being open. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server