Epovest

Accept discovered suggestions

accept_keyword_discovery

Accept one discovered suggestion (domain) or a batch (domains): each becomes a tracked keyword of the tracker, in place, and its series starts at the next survey. Refused with keyword_cap_reached when the batch would exceed the keyword cap, and with not_found when a domain is not currently suggested (the batch is all-or-nothing, nothing is added then). The answer carries keyword for a single domain, keywords for a batch. Accept on behalf of the user only when they said yes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	No	One domain to act on, exactly as listed by list_keyword_discoveries. Send this OR domains, never both.
`domains`	No	Several domains to act on in one call, each exactly as listed by list_keyword_discoveries. Send this OR domain, never both. ALL-OR-NOTHING: one invalid domain refuses the whole batch, so you never have to guess which half took.
`tracker_id`	Yes	The UUID of the tracker: call list_trackers to find it.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds context beyond annotations: all-or-nothing batch behavior, in-place update, series start timing, and error scenarios. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Mostly concise and front-loaded, but slightly redundant with 'all-or-nothing' mentioned twice. Still efficient overall.

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?

No output schema provided, and description only vaguely mentions returned keys ('keyword' or 'keywords') without specifying structure. Missing clear return value details.

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% and description reinforces mutual exclusivity and all-or-nothing, but does not add significant new meaning beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool accepts discovered suggestions (domains) to become tracked keywords, distinguishing it from siblings like dismiss_keyword_discovery and list_keyword_discoveries.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says to accept only when user says yes, and mentions error conditions (keyword_cap_reached, not_found). Does not explicitly contrast with dismiss tool but context implies it.

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

All Epovest tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?