Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
surfer-mcp

surfer-mcp

by office31
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

surfer_status

Check whether Golden Software Surfer is available and report its version, visibility, active workspace, and open document count.

Instructions

Report Surfer availability, version, visibility, workspace and open document count.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "surfer_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses exactly what data points are reported (availability, version, visibility, workspace, open document count), which is real behavioral context. However, it never states that the call is non-mutating, whether Surfer must be installed/running, or what happens on failure — relevant for a zero-parameter status probe.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, leading with the verb and resource and then listing outputs. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description's field list is sufficient for an agent to know what it will get back. The minor remaining gap is the absence of guidance on when to invoke it relative to the mutating sibling tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not misuse the space with parameter talk.

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 ('Report') and resource ('Surfer' status) and enumerates the exact fields returned: availability, version, visibility, workspace, open document count. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_documents or create_grid, though it does not explicitly name a non-overlapping alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/health-check call to run before or instead of document operations. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools