Epovest

Edit a logbook entry

update_logbook_entry

Idempotent

Edit a manual logbook entry: only the fields you send change (empty notes clear them). It is the customer's own logbook: a typo or a wrong date is simply corrected. quest_id files an entry under a quest after the fact, and null files it back under the project alone. Tool events cannot be edited: they are derived from the canon and surface registries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Short wording of the action, e.g. "Site translated into Spanish": it is what the annotation shows next to the citation curves.
`notes`	No	Free notes: context, links, details of the action.
`category`	No	What kind of action this is; it files the entry for filtering. "other" covers anything else.
`entry_id`	Yes	The UUID of the logbook entry: call get_logbook to find it (only manual entries carry an id).
`quest_id`	No	The quest of the same project this action moves forward, which is how a quest gets its own dated trail: call list_quests to find it. The entry stays an entry of the logbook of the project, it just says what it serves. Omitted on creation, the entry belongs to the project alone; sent as null on an edit, it goes back to the project alone.
`occurred_at`	No	When the action HAPPENED, ISO 8601 date or datetime, read as UTC without an offset. Distinct from the recording time: when the user says "yesterday" or "last week", compute and pass that date. Omitted on creation, now is used.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns perfectly, stating only sent fields are changed and providing nullability semantics. The description adds valuable behavior: notes clearing with empty strings, occurred_at being the action time rather than recording time, and the quest_id re-filing behavior. The non-idempotent nature is appropriately reflected with the description matching the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds edge cases and negative guidance. It's structured as one compact paragraph that efficiently communicates the tool's behavior 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 parameterized update tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral dimensions: what gets mutated, how quest_id re-files, and the distinction between event-derived and manual entries. The description and rich parameter docs together leave no ambiguity about the update semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by clarifying session-specific semantics: 'only the fields you send change (empty notes clear them)' and 'Occurred_at... Omitted on creation, now is used' — which provides the default/optional semantics not obvious from the schema alone. The quest_id description in particular explains the relationship between fields.

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 edits a manual logbook entry with specific behavior ('only the fields you send change'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning tool events cannot be edited, and the sibling list confirms related create/delete/restore operations exist. The purpose is precise and disambiguated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'quest_id files an entry under a quest after the fact, and null files it back under the project alone.' It also mentions that tool events cannot be edited, which implicitly directs users to not use this for such entries. The coverage of 'only manual entries carry an id' in the parameter schema further clarifies when to use this tool.

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?