Skip to main content
Glama

Epovest

by com.epovest

File a project away

archive_project
DestructiveIdempotent

File a project away once the folder has served its purpose: a client that left, a brand that was sold. It moves to the end of list_projects with archived true, and stops being offered when filing a tracker. Bring it back with archived false. Nothing is deleted and nothing cascades: the trackers filed under it keep their status, keep measuring and keep showing up in list_trackers, and the answer carries tracker_count, how many are still filed under it, so you can go on with archive_tracker on each one when that is what the user meant. Filing away an already filed project answers the same. Default is where trackers without a folder live: it has no id, so this tool always takes the UUID of a project of the account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
archivedNotrue files the project away, false brings it back. Omitted, it files it away.
project_idYesUUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). Adds details: nothing deleted, trackers keep status, answer carries tracker_count. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Paragraph is informative but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, but could be tightened. Front-loaded with the purpose and main effect.

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 no output schema, description explains side effects, idempotency, default project, and tracker_count in answer. Covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds value: explains default behavior for archived parameter, and that project_id is always UUID from list_projects. Enhances understanding 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 files a project away, moves it to the end of list_projects with archived true, and stops offering it when filing a tracker. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning archive_tracker and non-cascading behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when to use (project served its purpose) and when not (trackers continue measuring). Mentions the default project and alternatives like archive_tracker for cascading. Clear usage context.

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

All Epovest toolsInspect
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