Epovest

Set the free addresses of the brand

set_link_targets

Idempotent

Set the addresses of the brand that are neither its canonical website nor a page of the surface registry: a satellite domain the customer does not want to keep aligned, a tracking link, a partner page. They are set ONCE for the project and serve every line of the corroboration registry, present and future, so there is nothing to set line by line. The list you send REPLACES the previous one, and the answer returns what the project now holds, derived addresses included: read it back to confirm. An empty list keeps only the derived ones. Call get_link_targets first, and confirm with the user before replacing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.
`link_targets`	Yes	The FULL list of the free addresses, as absolute http(s) URLs. It replaces the previous one.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that the list replaces previous state, empty list keeps derived ones, and response returns full state. Adds context beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint). No contradiction.

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?

Description is clear and front-loaded with purpose, though slightly verbose. Every sentence contributes value; could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value (derived addresses included). With rich annotations and schema, description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%. Description adds context for project_id (sourced from list_projects) and clarifies link_targets is the full list that replaces. Baseline 3 with minor added value.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool sets 'free addresses of the brand' and explains what those are (satellite domains, tracking links, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_link_targets.

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?

Explicitly advises calling get_link_targets first and confirming with user before replacing. Provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to 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?