Epovest

Read the logbook of a project

get_logbook

Read-onlyIdempotent

The logbook of a project, newest first: every dated move, composed from two sources. source=tool events are derived from the suite itself (canon moved to a version, surface marked aligned, corroboration recorded); source=manual entries are actions the customer recorded (only these carry an id, a category, a label and notes). Each move also lands as an annotation on the citation curves of the trackers of the project: read the logbook to tell what was done when the curves moved. A canon_version item carries changed, the canon keys that revision touched (one_liner, short, long, category, language, perks, website, legal_name, address, phone, whatsapp, email), so you can drive the re-propagation from here: it names what to rewrite on the pages that restate those fields, and version 1 lists everything it posted. On a corroboration item, occurred_at is the PUBLICATION date when known and the recording date otherwise: published_on sits next to it, and it tells which of the two dates the move carries. Set quest_id to read the trail of ONE quest, and deleted to "only" to read the trash of the logbook instead of it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	No	Only the items of this source: "tool" for suite events, "manual" for recorded entries. Omitted, both.
`deleted`	No	Set to "only" for the entries taken out of the logbook (delete_logbook_entry), most recently taken out first, each with its deleted_at. It carries recorded entries only, so it goes without source and category. Omitted, the logbook is read.
`category`	No	Only the manual entries of this category (tool events carry no category and never match).
`quest_id`	No	Only the entries recorded against this quest, newest first: THIS is the dated trail of one quest, read where the logbook is already read. Call list_quests to find the id (each quest carries journal_entries, how many it holds). Tool events carry no quest and never match.
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral context: the composition of items from two sources, the structure of canon_version (including 'changed' keys), the semantics of occurred_at vs published_on, and the fact that moves also land as annotations on citation curves. It even explains the deleted='only' trash behavior. These details go far beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and dense, packing many details into a single paragraph. While every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy, the wall of text could be more approachable with bullet points or explicit separation of concepts. It's efficient but slightly overwhelming; still, it earns its length given the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return items: it explains the two source types, the canon_version item's fields, the corroboration item's date semantics, and the behavior of deleted. It also covers all filtering options and even directs to list_projects for project_id. An agent can call this correctly with no further info.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema already covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that tool events carry no category or quest, explains the difference between source values, and describes the behavior of quest_id as 'THIS is the dated trail of one quest'. It effectively bridges the gap between raw schema enums and real-world usage.

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 it reads the logbook of a project, newest first, and specifies the two sources (tool and manual). It distinguishes itself from the many list_* siblings by focusing on the logbook as a composite record. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'read the logbook to tell what was done when the curves moved' and how to filter via quest_id or deleted. It even references related tools (list_quests, list_projects) for finding IDs. It also explains that tool events never match category/quest filters, which helps decide when to use filters. There's no ambiguous 'when not' because this is the only logbook read tool.

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?