Epovest

Rename a project

rename_project

Idempotent

Correct the name of a project: the folder keeps its id, its canon, its trackers, its surfaces and its logbook, and the name shown is the only thing that changes. Names are unique per account: a name another project already goes by answers project_exists with that project, so read it back and settle another name with the user. Case, accents and spacing do not make two different names, which is why a project can always take back its own capitalisation. Sending the name it already carries answers the same, and a project filed away renames like any other. Use it for the name of the folder; the wording of the brand itself is the canon, and it moves with update_project_canon.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The name the project takes, as the user calls it (a client, a brand, a website...).
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: renaming preserves id, canon, trackers, surfaces, logbook; case/accents/spacing are normalized; sending the same name is a no-op. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with the core action and distinguishes from sibling tools without redundancy.

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 rename tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes and what doesn't, uniqueness behavior, idempotency, archived projects, and how to handle naming conflicts. It comprehensively answers likely agent questions.

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% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying 'name' is the folder name (not the canon) and emphasizes uniqueness and case-insensitivity, providing extra semantic context beyond the schema.

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 renames a project (the folder name), differentiating it from updating the canon via update_project_canon. It explicitly says 'Use it for the name of the folder; the wording of the brand itself is the canon, and it moves with update_project_canon.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it for the name of the folder' and names the alternative for canon changes. It also explains uniqueness rules and the need to consult project_exists for name conflicts, and notes archived projects can be renamed.

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?