Epovest

Restore dismissed suggestions

restore_keyword_discovery

Idempotent

Restore one dismissed domain (domain) or a batch (domains): it leaves the tracker dismissed list and becomes eligible for discovery again, suggested anew while the engines keep citing it (accepting it stays a distinct move). The counterpart of dismiss, for when the user changes their mind. Idempotent and never refused: restoring a domain that was not dismissed simply leaves it eligible. The answer carries restored as the domain for a single call, the list for a batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	No	One domain to act on, exactly as listed by list_keyword_discoveries. Send this OR domains, never both.
`domains`	No	Several 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_id`	Yes	The UUID of the tracker: call list_trackers to find it.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description elaborates on the idempotentHint annotation by stating 'Idempotent and never refused' and clarifying what happens with a domain that wasn't dismissed. It also explains that the operation affects the tracker's dismissed list, adding transparency beyond annotations.

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 well-structured and packs significant information into three sentences. It could be slightly more concise, but it avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers input behavior, parameter constraints, and the nature of the response (restored domain or list). It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds crucial context beyond the schema: the mutual exclusivity of domain and domains ('send this OR domains, never both'), and the all-or-nothing behavior for the batch parameter. These details are not present in the schema 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 action: restoring one or more dismissed domains, making them eligible for discovery again. It explicitly identifies the tool as the counterpart of dismiss, providing a distinct verb-resource pairing.

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'for when the user changes their mind' about a dismissal. It also explains idempotent behavior and that restoring a non-dismissed domain simply leaves it eligible, guiding appropriate use.

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?