Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_list_recipes

Lists configured structured-extraction fields so you can review available data points before extracting content from collected web evidence.

Instructions

List configured structured-extraction fields.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "proofpage_list_recipes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies a read operation via the word 'List'. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether the list can be empty, or what a 'configured' field means (configured where, by whom).

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 no filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but it earns its place with no waste.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a returned entry looks like or whether results are workspace-scoped. Given no annotations and no output schema, the current one-liner leaves the agent guessing about return shape.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory.

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 ('List') and resource ('structured-extraction fields'), which is clear enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like proofpage_submit_extraction. It does not, however, reconcile 'recipes' in the tool name with 'structured-extraction fields' in the description, leaving a terminology gap for an agent matching names to concepts.

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 indication of when to call this versus related tools such as proofpage_submit_extraction or proofpage_get_item, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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