Epovest

Create a project

create_project

Create a project to file trackers under: one project per BRAND, never per language. It can carry the brand canon: the reference wording every publication reuses as is, written in ONE language, its canonical language (carried at creation, it is recorded as canon version 1). The canon is never translated: localized expressions on the pages are outputs, not a second canon. Nothing is filed by this call: pass the returned id as project_id when creating or updating a tracker. Refused with project_exists when a project with this name already exists, and the answer carries the existing project: reuse its id instead of duplicating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the project, as the user calls it (a client, a brand, a website...).
`canon_long`	No	The two-sentence version, when the surface allows it.
`canon_email`	No	Public email address of the brand.
`canon_perks`	No	The distinctive claims of the brand, in the order they should be hammered, written in the canonical language. Facts that hold and can be corroborated ("works without a subscription"), never superlatives ("the best"), which no page reuses. A sent list REPLACES the previous one.
`canon_phone`	No	Phone number, international prefix included.
`canon_short`	No	THE one-sentence description third-party pages reuse as is.
`canon_address`	No	Postal address, as written on a listing. Language-neutral: the same string everywhere, like the other facts.
`canon_website`	No	The canonical address of the brand website, the one that identifies the entity. A bare domain is enough ("example.com" completes to "https://example.com"). ONE URL only: the other addresses of the brand (documentation, application, blog, social accounts) are SURFACES, never a second canonical site.
`canon_category`	No	Category label for listings and structured data.
`canon_language`	No	Short code of the ONE language the canon is written in, like "en" or "pt-br". The canonical language settles every language call (the llms.txt of a multilingual site is written in it). It travels WITH a wording: the canon is the wording, so sending the language on its own does not open one.
`canon_whatsapp`	No	WhatsApp number, international prefix included.
`canon_one_liner`	No	One-sentence signature of the brand.
`canon_legal_name`	No	Registered name of the company that operates the brand, with its jurisdiction when the user states it ("Acme Holdings, LLC, Delaware, United States"). Language-neutral, like the other facts: the AIs cross-read it to anchor the entity, and it is what a directory listing and an Organization.legalName block copy.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It discloses that no trackers are filed by this call ('Nothing is filed by this call') and that the canon is recorded as version 1. It also specifies the duplicate behavior: 'Refused with project_exists... reuse its id instead.' With annotations all false, the description carries the burden and handles it well.

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 a dense paragraph but every sentence provides necessary context: purpose, canon rules, filing behavior, and duplicate handling. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids 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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the key behaviors: what is created, what is not, how to use the returned id, and how duplicates are handled. The schema covers parameter details, so the description only needs to cover higher-level semantics, which it does thoroughly.

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?

The schema already describes all 13 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds conceptual context by explaining the brand canon and the one-language rule. This clarifies the purpose of canon_* parameters and why canon_language settles language calls. It adds meaning beyond the schema's field-level 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 opens with 'Create a project to file trackers under,' clearly stating the function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tracker by explaining projects are containers for trackers and adds the per-brand scoping rule. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage rules: 'one project per BRAND, never per language' and instructs to pass the returned id as project_id when creating or updating a tracker. It also advises reusing an existing project via the project_exists error instead of duplicating. While it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, the context makes the usage clear.

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?