Skip to main content
Glama

Epovest

by com.epovest

Record an action in the logbook

create_logbook_entry
Idempotent

Record an action in the logbook of a project: what was done, and WHEN it was done. occurred_at is the date of the ACTION itself, not of the recording: recording after the fact is the normal case ("record: site translated into Spanish yesterday" means occurred_at is yesterday). The entry joins the tool events in the logbook and lands as an annotation on the citation curves of the trackers of the project, so the action can be read against the measures. Recording is idempotent on the project, the label and occurred_at: calling again with the same three returns the entry already recorded instead of a second copy, so a retry is safe. The same move recorded in two languages has two labels, so it stays two entries. Pass quest_id when the action moves a quest forward: that entry then also reads as the dated trail of that quest, through get_logbook with the same quest_id, and the same label on two quests stays two entries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesShort wording of the action, e.g. "Site translated into Spanish": it is what the annotation shows next to the citation curves.
notesNoFree notes: context, links, details of the action.
categoryYesWhat kind of action this is; it files the entry for filtering. "other" covers anything else.
quest_idNoThe quest of the same project this action moves forward, which is how a quest gets its own dated trail: call list_quests to find it. The entry stays an entry of the logbook of the project, it just says what it serves. Omitted on creation, the entry belongs to the project alone; sent as null on an edit, it goes back to the project alone.
project_idYesUUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.
occurred_atNoWhen the action HAPPENED, ISO 8601 date or datetime, read as UTC without an offset. Distinct from the recording time: when the user says "yesterday" or "last week", compute and pass that date. Omitted on creation, now is used.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that the entry becomes an annotation on tracker citation curves, that idempotence is keyed on project_id + label + occurred_at, and that multi-language labels or quests produce distinct entries. It also explains the normal-case date semantics. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 definition is long but dense; each sentence adds a distinct fact such as date semantics, curve annotation, idempotence, duplicate labels, and quest routing. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

For a create tool with six parameters and no output schema, this is complete: all parameter states are covered, retry behavior is specified, and project/quest discovery is already provided in the schema. An agent can correctly select and invoke it without additional context.

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?

There is 100% schema coverage, but the description adds semantic depth: it pinpoints the idempotence key, clarifies occurred_at as action time rather than recording time, and explains how label and quest_id affect duplication. Notes and category remain schema-covered but not enriched, which is sufficient given the schema already documents them.

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 names the action (record), the object (logbook entry of a project), and immediately clarifies the key semantic: what was done and when. The verb and object separate it from sibling tools like get_logbook, update_logbook_entry, or delete_logbook_entry even without explicit sibling comparison.

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?

It gives explicit conditions: pass quest_id when the action moves a quest forward, omit/null quest_id for project-only entries, and use occurred_at for the action date rather than the recording time. It also tells the agent that retries are safe because of idempotence. It doesn't name an alternative tool for editing or deleting, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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