Epovest

Bring a check of your own back to a checklist

restore_surface_check

Idempotent

Bring a check of your own back to the checklist of a surface, with the cells it had: it becomes work again, so the page needs it verified to count as aligned. The checks to bring back are listed by list_surfaces in checklist.custom, with deleted true. Restoring a check already in the checklist answers the same.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`check`	Yes	The key of the check of your own, exactly as listed by list_surfaces in checklist.custom (add_surface_check returns it too).
`surface_id`	Yes	The UUID of the surface: call list_surfaces to find it.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it becomes 'work again' and needs verification, and it explains the source of valid checks (list_surfaces with deleted true). It also reinforces idempotency by stating restoring an existing check 'answers the same.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate consequence. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does and its effect, the second provides the source for valid checks, and the third handles an idempotency edge case. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, annotations for idempotency), the description covers the essential context: what is restored, how to find restorable checks, the consequence on verification, and an edge case. It does not mention error conditions or return values, but these are not critical for this simple restore operation.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (check and surface_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters, only reinforcing that the check key comes from list_surfaces and restoring brings back cells. No significant parameter-level details 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 action: 'Bring a check of your own back to the checklist of a surface' with the specific resource (surface checklist) and verb (restore). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_surface_check (adds new) and delete_surface_check (removes) by focusing on restoration of previously deleted checks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: to restore checks that are marked 'deleted true' in list_surfaces. It also covers the edge case of restoring an already-existing check. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for adding or deleting checks, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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?