Epovest

Register a surface

create_surface

Register a surface of a project: one page about the brand where the customer has the final say (their site, their profiles, their listings, wherever they can change the content). The test that settles which registry a page belongs to: if the customer changes the page, does the change stay? Yes means they have the final say, so it is a surface; no means someone else has it, so it is a corroboration (create_corroboration), even on a page they can edit, as on a wiki. URL-FIRST: the url is the only thing needed, type and label are derived from it; pass them only to correct a derivation. The type derives from the address and the canon: a page on the canon website is a website, a known place carries its own kind, and any other host is other, with the generic checklist. It is born never_aligned: bring the page in phase with the canon, then record what it carries with tick_surface_checklist, cell by cell. The aligned status DERIVES from those verifications and is never declared: verifying the last canon cell aligns the surface on its own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Absolute http(s) address of the surface.
`type`	No	What kind of surface this is; it picks the checklist to come. OMIT IT on creation: the type is derived from the url by the catalogue of places (github.com is GitHub, an unknown host is the brand website). Send it only to correct a derivation. "other" covers anything else and carries the generic checklist.
`label`	No	Display name of the surface. OMIT IT on creation: it is derived from the url (the handle on a known place, the host and path on a website).
`notes`	No	Free registry notes: who owns the account, access, context.
`languages`	No	Languages of the surface, as short codes like "en" or "pt-br". A sent list replaces the previous one.
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that the surface is created as 'never_aligned' and that alignment derives from checklist verifications, never declared. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover error conditions or permissions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: definition, decision test, URL-first rule, derivation logic, and lifecycle state. Though longer than a typical tool description, it is dense with actionable guidance and no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, related workflows), the description covers purpose, usage, and state transitions well. It lacks explicit mention of the return value/response, but the operational ambiguity is low because the focus is on creation and later alignment.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantics: URL is the only required input, type and label are derived (pass only to correct), and the derivation rules are explained. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Register a surface of a project' and provides a precise definition of a surface. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_corroboration with a decision rule, making it unmistakably different from siblings.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance via the customer-change test and even names the alternative tool (create_corroboration). It also instructs when to omit type/label (URL-first) and when to pass them only to correct derivations, plus points to the next step (tick_surface_checklist).

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?