Skip to main content
Glama
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo

proofpage_add_source

Add a public web page, image, or PDF URL to Proofpage after authorization, validating the destination for later evidence collection without fetching it immediately.

Instructions

Add a public web page, image or PDF URL after user authorization. Validates public destinations; does not fetch the page until collect is called.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_add_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does some real work: it discloses that destinations are validated as public, that a user authorization step is required, and that no fetch occurs until collect runs. It omits idempotency/duplicate behavior, what happens when a URL fails validation, and the returned identifier needed for later calls.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and constraints front-loaded and no filler; the no-fetch caveat follows the main statement in the right order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the description covers workflow and validation but leaves the 'name' parameter and the return value (presumably a source id used by collect/get_source_access) unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never mentions the 'name' parameter at all and only implicitly characterizes 'url' as a public web page, image or PDF. An agent must guess what 'name' means (label? display title?) and whether it must be unique.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('public web page, image or PDF URL'), and clarifies the boundary against the collect sibling by saying it does not fetch. It does not differentiate from schedule_source or list_sources, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

'After user authorization' gives an explicit precondition, and 'does not fetch the page until collect is called' establishes the sequencing with the follow-up tool. No when-not guidance or explicit comparison to schedule_source, but the usage context is clear rather than merely implied.

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