Skip to main content
Glama

Epovest

by com.epovest

Update a surface

update_surface
Idempotent

Update the registry sheet of a surface: only the fields you send change (a sent languages list replaces the previous one; an empty label or notes clears it). No journal line is ever written here: an alignment is earned with tick_surface_checklist, cell by cell. Languages ARE the columns of the checklist, so declaring the language of a single-language page renames its column and carries its verified cells along. When the change leaves no single destination (a language dropped from a page that keeps others, one column split into several), the columns that leave the model come back in dropped_checklist_columns with what they held; their cells stay stored, and declaring the language again brings them back. The status of the answer is derived from the cells that read NOW, so read it back rather than assuming it held.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoAbsolute http(s) address of the surface.
typeNoWhat kind of surface this is; it picks the checklist to come. OMIT IT on creation: the type is derived from the url by the catalogue of places (github.com is GitHub, an unknown host is the brand website). Send it only to correct a derivation. "other" covers anything else and carries the generic checklist.
labelNoDisplay name of the surface. OMIT IT on creation: it is derived from the url (the handle on a known place, the host and path on a website).
notesNoFree registry notes: who owns the account, access, context.
languagesNoLanguages of the surface, as short codes like "en" or "pt-br". A sent list replaces the previous one.
surface_idYesThe UUID of the surface: call list_surfaces to find it.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses detailed side effects: language replacement, label/notes clearing, column renaming, dropped_checklist_columns behavior, persistence of cells, and the derived status. This is far richer than the idempotentHint and readOnlyHint annotations, providing valuable 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than typical but well-structured: it starts with the core action, then explains behavioral nuances in a logical flow. Each sentence provides meaningful detail without redundancy, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 complexity (language list replacement, column handling, dropped columns), the description covers key behaviors and return aspects (dropped_checklist_columns, read-back advice). It does not describe the exact response schema, but no output schema exists and the description provides sufficient guidance for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some conceptual context (e.g., languages as columns, dropped_checklist_columns) but does not significantly enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update the registry sheet of a surface' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that no journal line is written and that alignment is earned via tick_surface_checklist, making its scope clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how updates work ('only the fields you send change'), when to use alternative tools ('No journal line is ever written here... tick_surface_checklist'), and what to check after updating ('read it back rather than assuming it held'). It does not enumerate all alternative tools but gives clear contextual cues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Epovest toolsInspect
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