Skip to main content
Glama
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo

proofpage_list_changes_since

List Proofpage changes recorded after an ISO 8601 timestamp—content edits, publisher rights updates, broken links, and collection issues—newest first.

Instructions

List changes Proofpage recorded after an ISO 8601 time, newest first: content edits, publisher rights changes, broken links, and collection problems.

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": {
      "since": "<since>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_list_changes_since"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two useful traits — sort order ('newest first') and the kinds of records returned (content edits, rights changes, broken links, collection problems). It omits whether results are paginated, capped, or gated by permissions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb-resource, then scope, then return contents. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, the filter, and the ordering, which is enough to call it correctly. It is thin on result-set sizing and pagination, which the absent output schema would otherwise need covered.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only declares 'since' as a bare string, so the description's 'ISO 8601' format and 'after' (exclusive lower bound) semantics are genuinely additive. However, it stops there — no timezone, precision, or boundary-inclusivity detail — so it only partly compensates for the empty schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List changes Proofpage recorded') plus the exact scope ('after an ISO 8601 time') and enumerates the change categories returned. It does not differentiate from the sibling proofpage_list_changes, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which listing tool to pick.

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?

The 'after an ISO 8601 time' phrasing implies this is the incremental/polling variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative (proofpage_list_changes), and no prerequisites such as authentication or pagination expectations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.