Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proofpage_replay_context

Read exactly the excerpts recorded for a given evidence run without new searches or network access; it does not reproduce model outputs.

Instructions

Read exactly the excerpts recorded in an evidence run. No new search or network. Does not reproduce model outputs.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_replay_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 usefully discloses that the operation is read-only, performs no new search or network access, and does not reproduce model outputs, but it omits error behavior (e.g., unknown run_id) and whether the result is paginated or complete.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the behavioral constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral constraints. However, it leaves the only parameter unexplained and does not describe what the returned excerpts look like, which is a meaningful gap at 0% schema coverage.

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% and the sole parameter, run_id, is never explained. The phrase 'recorded in an evidence run' implies run_id identifies that run, but it does not say where to obtain the ID (e.g., from proofpage_list_evidence_runs) or give any format expectations.

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 and resource: 'Read exactly the excerpts recorded in an evidence run,' which clearly identifies a deterministic retrieval operation. The added 'No new search or network' distinguishes it from search/collect tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as proofpage_get_context or proofpage_record_context.

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 constraint 'No new search or network' implies when this tool is preferred over live-search tools, but it never states when not to use it or names an alternative. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly guided.

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