Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_get_item

Retrieve a stored web evidence item by ID, including its cited quotes, revision IDs, and capture timestamps for source verification.

Instructions

Read an item and its evidence.

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_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'Read' only weakly implies a non-mutating operation. It says nothing about permissions, behavior when item_id is unknown, whether evidence is embedded or referenced, or the response shape.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient compression.

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?

A retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undefined parameter leaves key questions unanswered: what an 'item' is, what 'its evidence' contains, and what a caller receives. The description does not close those gaps.

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% for the single parameter, so the description is the only place item_id could be explained — yet it never says what an item ID is, where to obtain one, or its expected format. The one sentence adds nothing the schema does not already show.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb 'Read' and resource 'an item and its evidence' give a rough sense of a retrieval tool, but 'item' is never defined and the phrasing is vague against siblings like proofpage_get_evidence and proofpage_get_context. An agent cannot confidently tell from this alone whether this returns a record, a document, or an evidence bundle.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives even though 34 sibling tools exist, several of which (get_evidence, get_context, get_run) plausibly overlap. The agent must infer correctness from the name 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