Claim by Ouroboros Apps

save proof

save_proof

DestructiveIdempotent

Store evidence that backs one approved claim: a title, where it comes from, and what it shows. Proof does not approve a new claim, guarantee, discount, or offer. Link claimId when the evidence supports a saved claim. Pass proofId to revise an existing proof record.

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": {
      "brandId": "<brandId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "source": "<source>",
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "save_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`brandId`	Yes
`claimId`	No
`proofId`	No
`summary`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description usefully adds the create/revise duality implied by proofId, but it never explains what destructive=true actually means here (e.g. whether revising with proofId overwrites prior fields) or any permission requirements, leaving the main behavioral question unanswered.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the boundary and the two conditional parameter rules. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a 6-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, boundaries, and 5 of 6 parameters; only brandId's role and the destructive/overwrite semantics remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for most fields: title, source ('where it comes from'), summary ('what it shows'), claimId, and proofId are all given semantic meaning beyond their bare names. brandId, a required parameter, is never explained, which is the only gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Store) and resource (evidence/proof), enumerates what a proof consists of (title, source, summary), and explicitly carves itself out from adjacent capabilities: 'Proof does not approve a new claim, guarantee, discount, or offer.' That negative framing lets an agent separate it from save_approved_claim and save_offer without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for the two optional parameters: 'Link claimId when the evidence supports a saved claim' and 'Pass proofId to revise an existing proof record,' which effectively documents create-vs-update usage. It also states a boundary (this tool does not approve claims/offers), but it never names the sibling tool an agent should call instead for those cases.

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

All Claim by Ouroboros Apps tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.