Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_get_crawl

Read a job's crawl coverage, incomplete pages, and checkpoints to track indexing progress and identify gaps.

Instructions

Read durable crawl coverage, incomplete pages, and checkpoints.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_get_crawl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only asserts that the coverage data is 'durable' and that checkpoints are included. It does not say whether this is a snapshot vs. live view, whether it works on in-progress jobs, or anything about latency/volume of returned pages.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, but the terseness borders on under-specification rather than economy.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter mean the description is the only informational source, and it delivers one clause. For a crawl-inspection tool that could return large page/checkpoint structures, an agent is left guessing at invocation conditions and payload shape.

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 required parameter job_id, and the description never mentions it — no indication of where the job_id comes from (start_crawl's return) or what form it takes. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 clear read verb plus the specific resource being retrieved: crawl coverage, incomplete pages, and checkpoints for a crawl job. That distinguishes it from the lifecycle siblings start_crawl/step_crawl/cancel_crawl, even though none are named.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., whether the crawl must already be started or finished), and never names an alternative such as get_run or list_changes. The usage is only inferable from the surrounding crawl lifecycle names.

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