Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@proof-holdings/mcp-server

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_lookalike_alerts

Read-only

Lists newest Lookalike Watch alerts for artifacts whose names resemble your brand tokens, including the evidence for each alert.

Instructions

List Lookalike Watch alerts, newest first: artifacts whose names resemble one of your brand tokens, with the evidence for each. A caller who never subscribed gets an empty page, not a 404.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

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": "list_lookalike_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
limitNoItems per page

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
paginationYesThe page sent, its size and the total count. There is no `total_pages`: derive it from `total` and `limit`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with that. Beyond annotations it discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are ordered newest first, and an unsubscribed caller receives an empty page rather than a 404, which prevents the agent from misreading an empty result as an error. It does not mention any rate limit or maximum page depth.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: capability and ordering first, then the access requirement separated out with a blank line. Every sentence carries information, including the explicit "start_login does NOT open this tool" correction. Nothing is redundant, and the front-loading is correct.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description spends its budget on the things structure cannot convey: ordering, the empty-page-vs-404 asymmetry, and the auth prerequisite. For a two-parameter read-only list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret an empty response.

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 description coverage is 100% (page and limit are both documented), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the ordering fact (newest first) that makes page selection meaningful. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there is no syntax or boundary guidance to add.

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 ("List Lookalike Watch alerts") and then defines what an alert actually is: artifacts whose names resemble a brand token, with per-item evidence. That definition gives the agent a working model of the resource. It stops short of contrasting with the similarly named list_lookalike_reports sibling, so the distinction must be inferred from the word 'alerts' alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete prerequisites (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY, restart, retry) and an explicit negative routing hint that start_login does NOT grant access to this tool. What is missing is a when-to-use-this-vs-that clause, e.g. pointing at subscribe_lookalike_watch for a caller with no alerts yet.

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