Skip to main content
Glama

Epovest

by com.epovest

Dismiss discovered suggestions

dismiss_keyword_discovery
Idempotent

Dismiss one discovered suggestion (domain) or a batch (domains): the domains are never proposed again on this tracker, and appear in the dismissed list until restored. All-or-nothing on unknown domains: one that is not currently suggested refuses the whole batch (not_found). Dismissing an already dismissed domain is fine, it does not fail the batch. The answer carries dismissed as the domain for a single call, the list for a batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoOne domain to act on, exactly as listed by list_keyword_discoveries. Send this OR domains, never both.
domainsNoSeveral domains to act on in one call, each exactly as listed by list_keyword_discoveries. Send this OR domain, never both. ALL-OR-NOTHING: one invalid domain refuses the whole batch, so you never have to guess which half took.
tracker_idYesThe UUID of the tracker: call list_trackers to find it.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds important behavior: all-or-nothing on unknown domains, idempotent dismissal of already dismissed domains, and response format. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and covers all behavioral details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (dismissed domain/list) and effect on suggestions. All key behaviors for a 3-parameter tool are covered, with minor room to add explicit alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage; domain/domains/tracker_id are well-described. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 dismisses keyword discoveries (domains) in single or batch mode. It uses specific verb 'dismiss' and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like restore_keyword_discovery or list_keyword_discoveries.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the effect of dismissal (never proposed again) and the all-or-nothing batch behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_keyword_discovery. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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