Skip to main content
Glama

Epovest

by com.epovest

Write to the Epovest support team

contact_support

Send a message to the humans behind Epovest: report a problem, suggest an improvement, ask a question. Use it when a tool refuses what should work, when the product is missing something the user needs, or when the user asks you to tell us something. The message lands in the support threads of the account, which the members also see in the app, and a human answers there. Reply to an ongoing thread with thread_id, and read the answer with get_support_thread.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoWhat this message is: sorts it on arrival.
messageYesWhat you want to tell the support team, in the words of the user when they dictated it. Include what you tried and what happened.
subjectNoTitle of the thread. Derived from the message when omitted; ignored when replying.
thread_idNoReply to this thread instead of opening a new one: call list_support_threads to find it.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains that the message lands in support threads visible to members and that a human will answer. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature, but the description clarifies the human response process and thread behavior.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences that cover purpose, usage, and reply behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, basic annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the workflow, when to use, and how to reply. Minor omissions like error handling or default behavior for missing thread_id are acceptable.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds extra value by explaining the purpose of thread_id (reply to an ongoing thread) and that subject is derived from message when omitted, which goes beyond the schema's brief 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: sending a message to the Epovest support team for reporting problems, suggesting improvements, or asking questions. It clearly identifies the verb ('send a message') and the resource ('humans behind Epovest'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_support_thread by explaining the workflow.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool, such as when a tool refuses to work, when the product is missing something, or when the user asks to tell something. It also explains how to reply to an ongoing thread using thread_id and refers to get_support_thread for reading answers, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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