Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_get_evidence

Retrieve original captured web evidence and revision hashes by item ID to verify source content and track revisions.

Instructions

Read original captured material and revision hashes.

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_get_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, return format, or what happens if the item is missing.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. It is extremely terse for a tool with no annotations or parameter documentation, but the conciseness itself is appropriate.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves the required item_id unexplained and gives no return-format context, making correct invocation difficult without external knowledge.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The single required parameter item_id is not described in the schema (0% coverage) and is never mentioned in the description. An agent cannot determine what the ID refers to, its format, or its constraints from either source.

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?

The description states a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("original captured material and revision hashes"), making the core operation clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling retrieval tools like proofpage_get_item or proofpage_get_context.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternative sibling tool. Usage is only vaguely implied by the verb "Read."

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