Skip to main content
Glama
Proofpage MCP Server

Proofpage MCP Server

by Mehxeo

proofpage_submit_extraction

Store proposed field values with exact evidence quotes for a recipe revision, leaving submissions unreviewed and marking absent fields as null.

Instructions

Store proposed field values with exact evidence quotes; null for absent fields. Remains unreviewed.

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": {
      "recipe_id": "<recipe_id>",
      "revision_id": "<revision_id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "proofpage_submit_extraction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYes
recipe_idYes
revision_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that exact evidence quotes are required, absent fields should be null, and the result remains unreviewed, but it omits mutation effects, validation/rejection behavior, idempotency, permissions, and return shape.

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 short, front-loaded, and wastes no words. The second fragment, 'Remains unreviewed,' is somewhat ambiguous but still adds useful state information.

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?

Given a three-required-parameter mutation tool with a nested fields object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the recipe/revision identifiers, the expected fields structure, or what happens after submission.

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 description coverage is 0% and the fields parameter is an untyped nested object. The description partially clarifies that field values need exact evidence quotes and nulls for absent fields, but it does not explain recipe_id, revision_id, or the structure of fields.

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 action: storing proposed field values with exact evidence quotes, with null for absent fields. This is more than a restatement of the name, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as proofpage_verify_quotes or explain the recipe/revision 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools like proofpage_verify_quotes and proofpage_check_evidence_run are not referenced.

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