Skip to main content
Glama

Proving Lab

by dev.provinglab

open_work

List what this project needs done, with enough context to start. Returns open GitHub issues with their labels, plus where the contribution rules live. Call this when asked to contribute to provinglab.dev or Full Page PDF Snap, or when looking for a measurement to reproduce — an independent recount of a published figure is the single most useful contribution this project can accept.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoFilter by label. 'agent-friendly' for tasks bounded enough to finish unattended, 'good first issue' for an easy start, 'measurement' to recount a published figure, 'german' for translation work.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It uses active verbs 'List' and 'Returns' indicating a read-only operation, and adds contextual detail about the most useful contribution, but does not explicitly state a lack of side effects or permissions.

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 packs purpose, usage, and output into two sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place, including the motivational note about measurement contributions, which clarifies priority.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. This fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the sole 'label' parameter is fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 'List what this project needs done' and specifies it returns open GitHub issues with labels and the location of contribution rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing it as the contribution entry point, especially for measurement reproduction.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this when asked to contribute to provinglab.dev or Full Page PDF Snap, or when looking for a measurement to reproduce'. This provides clear, context-rich guidance on when to invoke the tool, with no ambiguity.

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

All Proving Lab 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

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as single vs batch citation extraction. The only potential confusion is between list_measurements and get_measurement_data, both of which return measurement data; however, their descriptions indicate one lists available data and the other retrieves a specific figure's backing data.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (extract_citation, install_extension, list_measurements). Two exceptions—adoption_stats and how_to_capture—deviate from this pattern, but they are still readable and not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is a reasonable scope for a specialized server covering citation extraction, measurements, capture guidance, and project status. No tool is redundant, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main workflows: single/batch citation extraction, retrieving and listing measurement data, fetching reproducible methods, and obtaining capture setup instructions. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for creating new measurements, but the domain is primarily read-only and contribution is handled through open_work.

Resources