Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
evipedia-mcp

evipedia-mcp

by forever-healthy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

suggest_review

Propose a new intervention for evipedia.ai by submitting a suggestion to the public form. Use when the catalogue lacks coverage; only the intervention name is required.

Instructions

Suggest a new review for evipedia.ai — propose an intervention the catalogue doesn't cover yet. Submits to evipedia's public suggestion form (the same one at evipedia.ai/suggest). Use only when the user explicitly wants to propose a new review — this sends a message to the evipedia team. Search first with search_reviews to confirm the catalogue doesn't already cover it. Only intervention is required; goal, references, and email are optional and are forwarded verbatim. Returns a plain-text confirmation on success and raises "Suggestion failed: HTTP {status}" otherwise. Not idempotent — calling it twice files two separate suggestions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intervention": "<intervention>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoOptional health or longevity goal the intervention targets
emailNoOptional submitter email, so the evipedia team can follow up
referencesNoOptional supporting references or links
interventionYesName of the intervention to suggest (e.g. 'Urolithin A')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.29

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that a message is sent to the evipedia team via a public form, the success return format (plain-text confirmation), the failure format ('Suggestion failed: HTTP {status}'), and non-idempotency ('calling it twice files two separate suggestions'). These are exactly the side-effect traits an agent needs before invoking a write/submit tool.

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?

Purpose and submission target are front-loaded, followed by usage constraints, required params, and return/error semantics in a tight sequence. Each sentence adds a distinct, necessary fact with no filler.

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 non-idempotent submit tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, the gating precondition, the alternative to check first, required vs optional params, and both success and failure outcomes.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that only `intervention` is required, that goal/references/email are optional, and that optional values are forwarded verbatim to the team. That forwarding behavior is not expressed in 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?

It names a specific verb (suggest/propose) and resource (a new review/intervention not in the catalogue) and explicitly identifies the submission target. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_reviews, list_reviews, and get_review.

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?

It states the exact precondition ('use only when the user explicitly wants to propose a new review') and the exclusion implied by that. It also prescribes the alternative workflow: search first with search_reviews to confirm the catalogue doesn't cover it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools