Epovest

Update the canon of a project

update_project_canon

Idempotent

Revise the brand canon of a project. Field by field: a provided field replaces the current wording (an empty string clears it), an omitted field is kept as is. Any actual change records the NEXT canon version (numbered, immutable; version_created true in the answer); sending identical wording records nothing. The canon lives in ONE language, its canonical language (canon_language): it is never translated, changing the language is a revision like any other. The canon is meant to be STABLE: revising it is a rare and deliberate move, and every surface that reuses the wording will need to be brought back in phase with the new version. Confirm with the user before revising.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`canon_long`	No	The two-sentence version, when the surface allows it.
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the project: call list_projects to find it.
`canon_email`	No	Public email address of the brand.
`canon_perks`	No	The distinctive claims of the brand, in the order they should be hammered, written in the canonical language. Facts that hold and can be corroborated ("works without a subscription"), never superlatives ("the best"), which no page reuses. A sent list REPLACES the previous one.
`canon_phone`	No	Phone number, international prefix included.
`canon_short`	No	THE one-sentence description third-party pages reuse as is.
`canon_address`	No	Postal address, as written on a listing. Language-neutral: the same string everywhere, like the other facts.
`canon_website`	No	The canonical address of the brand website, the one that identifies the entity. A bare domain is enough ("example.com" completes to "https://example.com"). ONE URL only: the other addresses of the brand (documentation, application, blog, social accounts) are SURFACES, never a second canonical site.
`canon_category`	No	Category label for listings and structured data.
`canon_language`	No	Short code of the ONE language the canon is written in, like "en" or "pt-br". On a project whose canon is not posted yet, send it with at least one wording: the canon is the wording, and the language on its own does not open one.
`canon_whatsapp`	No	WhatsApp number, international prefix included.
`canon_one_liner`	No	One-sentence signature of the brand.
`canon_legal_name`	No	Registered name of the company that operates the brand, with its jurisdiction when the user states it ("Acme Holdings, LLC, Delaware, United States"). Language-neutral, like the other facts: the AIs cross-read it to anchor the entity, and it is what a directory listing and an Organization.legalName block copy.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint true), the description explains that identical wording records nothing, empty strings clear fields, omitted fields are kept, and each actual change creates a new immutable numbered version with version_created in the response. It also details language constraints and downstream effects, providing substantial behavioral context.

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 about 120 words but packs in essential behavior: update semantics, versioning, language, stability, and confirmation. It is well-structured with clear sentences, each adding value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key contextual aspects: versioning response flag, language behavior, and user confirmation. It could additionally mention prerequisites like project existence, but the schema already instructs to call list_projects for project_id. Overall, it is comprehensive for its complexity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds critical cross-parameter semantics: field-by-field replacement, empty-string clearing, omitted-kept behavior, and the requirement that canon_language must be sent with at least one wording until the canon is posted. This meaningfully deepens understanding 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 opens with 'Revise the brand canon of a project,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling update tools by focusing on the canon specifically and explaining the field-by-field revision model.

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 instructs 'Confirm with the user before revising' and states the canon is meant to be stable and revisiting is rare and deliberate. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond that.

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?