Skip to main content
Glama

Epovest

by com.epovest

List the channels behind a source

list_source_channels
Read-onlyIdempotent

The channels behind one source of the Atlas: who published the videos the AIs cited when answering the questions of this account, with their videos and the questions that surfaced each one. The unit of the Atlas is the registrable domain, so a video host is one source however many people publish on it; this reads the level below, the one where the work happens, since a channel is what you contact. Ranked by how many of your questions each channel came back on, then by videos, then by citations: a channel that answers two of your questions with one well-titled video sits above a busy channel cited twice on the same one. Each channel carries you_are_there, read from the corroborations this account has recorded. The answer also carries what it is drawn from: videos cited on your questions, how many have a known channel, and how many are still to be established.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_idYesThe UUID of the source: call list_sources to find it.
project_idNoOnly the channels surfaced by the trackers of this project: the UUID of a project of the account (call list_projects), or "default" for the trackers without a project. Omitted, every tracker of the account counts.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by detailing the ranking logic (by question count, videos, citations), the inclusion of you_are_there, and the coverage statistics (videos with known channel vs still to establish). No contradiction with annotations; the content adds substantial behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose, containing long explanatory sentences about the Atlas structure and ranking rationale that are not strictly necessary for tool invocation. It could be shortened significantly to focus on the essential purpose and key behavioral details.

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?

For a list tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the response contains (ranked channels with videos, questions, you_are_there, coverage stats). It is complete for an agent to understand the data returned, though pagination or limits are not mentioned.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already described in the schema (source_id as UUID, project_id with 'default' option). The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 lists channels behind a source, elaborates on the hierarchy (source vs channel), and explicitly frames it as reading the level below sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sources and get_source, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 context and what the tool does but does not explicitly tell when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage when a deeper view of a source's channels is needed, but lacks explicit direction or exclusion criteria compared to siblings.

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