Epovest

Add a check of your own to the checklist of a surface

add_surface_check

Idempotent

Add a check of your own to the checklist of one surface: a requirement the person holds on THAT page, in their words. It becomes REQUIRED for the page to count as aligned, exactly like the canon items of the template, and it is ticked with tick_surface_checklist at the key returned here. Reach for it whenever the person states something a page must carry that is theirs to decide: the pricing block quotes the canon boilerplate, the OG image is the current one, the footer carries the legal name, the pinned post links to the launch page. restates_canon is the one judgement to make, and the question is simple: does the tick become FALSE when the wording of the canon changes? True for a check that restates the canon, and its verification then perishes with the wording, putting the page back in the queue; false, the default, for a check that constates anything else, and the tick then stands until someone clears it. Sending the same label again returns the check already there, and brings it back from the trash if it was in it, so a replay never duplicates. Up to 20 checks on a surface.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	Yes	What the check says, as the person would read it on their checklist: one line, up to 120 characters ("The FAQ block quotes the canon boilerplate").
`scope`	No	How many cells the check gets: "language" by default, one per language of the surface; "site" for what exists once for the whole site whatever the number of languages.
`surface_id`	Yes	The UUID of the surface: call list_surfaces to find it.
`restates_canon`	No	true when the check restates the WORDING of the canon, so its verification perishes when the wording moves. false by default, for a check that constates something else.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial context: the check becomes REQUIRED, it is ticked via tick_surface_checklist, replaying restores from trash without duplicating, and there is a limit of 20 checks. The nuanced explanation of restates_canon (what makes a check perish with wording changes) goes well beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, it is densely packed and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail (examples, idempotency, limits). The structure moves naturally from definition to usage to parameter nuance to operational behavior. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nuanced idempotency, behavioral nuance) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the check means, how it integrates with tick_surface_checklist, edge cases (restoration, no duplicates, maximum count), and the key parameter decision. No significant information is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For restates_canon, it explains the key judgment call with a precise question and consequences. It also provides examples for label content and clarifies the default false behavior. This adds value beyond the property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Add a check of your own to the checklist of one surface'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_surface_check, delete_surface_check, and tick_surface_checklist by focusing on adding a new custom check. The examples ('the pricing block quotes the canon boilerplate') further clarify what the tool accomplishes.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for it whenever the person states something a page must carry that is theirs to decide'. It also gives concrete examples of such situations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update_surface_check) or when-not-to-use conditions, which would earn a 5.

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?