Look up a ProofX creator's profile, including their identity, certificate details, and content count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| creator_id | Yes | The ProofX creator ID (8-character hex string, e.g. 'c1c15c6c') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / creator_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The ProofX creator ID (8-character hex string, e.g. 'c1c15c6c')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "creator_id"
+]Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / creator_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The ProofX creator ID (8-character hex string, e.g. 'c1c15c6c')",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "creator_id"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool returns identity, certificate details, and content count, which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if creator_id is invalid) or any additional constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and the scope. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description covers the key return areas (identity, certificate details, content count). Annotations cover behavioral traits. For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, this is largely complete, though it could mention error handling for missing creators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (single creator_id parameter with description). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself—it focuses on the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('ProofX creator's profile') and lists the specific details returned (identity, certificate details, content count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like protect_content or verify_content which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that my_account might be more appropriate for querying the current user's own profile, or that this tool is the way to get certificate details. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: local hash computation, creator profile lookup, own account info, content protection, verification by ID, and verification by hash. No overlapping functionality.
Five of six tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compute_hash, get_creator, protect_content, verify_content, verify_hash). Only 'my_account' deviates as a possessive noun phrase, but it remains clear and conventional for account info.
Six tools is well-scoped for a content protection server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or excess, fitting the domain naturally.
Core workflows (hash computation, protection, verification by ID or hash, creator lookup) are covered. Missing features like listing a creator's protected content or unprotecting content are minor gaps that don't break the primary use case.