Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_affected_outputs

Identify recorded outputs that depend on changed or missing item revisions to determine what needs review or regeneration.

Instructions

Find recorded outputs that depend on changed or missing revisions of an item. No network.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_affected_outputs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'No network' is a genuinely useful disclosure that the call is local/offline and will not fetch missing revisions. However, it does not confirm read-only semantics, whether results are paginated or bounded, or what the agent gets back.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational constraint ('No network') appended rather than buried.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what a 'recorded output' is, what 'missing revisions' means, and whether the result is a list of output identifiers or full records.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single item_id parameter, so the schema provides only a bare string type. The description's phrase 'of an item' implies item_id is the item identifier but adds no format, provenance, or scoping detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Find) and a specific resource (recorded outputs depending on changed or missing revisions of an item), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_changes or diff_revisions. The only weakness is that 'recorded outputs' and 'revisions' are domain jargon left undefined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named, even though siblings such as proofpage_diff_revisions and proofpage_list_changes overlap in the 'what changed' space. The agent must infer from the phrase 'depend on changed or missing revisions' that this is an impact-analysis tool.

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