Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_check_evidence_run

Compare pinned evidence against current local revisions to identify changed quotes and affected outputs without refreshing live web sources.

Instructions

Compare pinned evidence with current local revisions; identify changed quotes and affected outputs. No live-web refresh.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_check_evidence_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one valuable trait — the check is local-only with no live-web refresh — but says nothing about whether it is read-only or writes a run record, what permissions or run state it requires, or how failures are surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core comparison front-loaded and the scope caveat second; nothing is padded. The trailing fragment is slightly clipped but still informative.

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 single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys what is compared and roughly what is returned, but leaves the sole input undefined and gives no mutation or side-effect profile.

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?

There is one required parameter at 0% schema coverage, and the description never mentions run_id — not its format, nor that it comes from an evidence run (e.g. proofpage_list_evidence_runs). It does not 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 and comparison (compare pinned evidence with current local revisions) plus the outputs of that comparison (changed quotes, affected outputs). It is distinguishable from siblings like diff_revisions or verify_quotes, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'No live-web refresh' implies a when-not condition (use a refresh/recheck tool if you need current web data), but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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