Skip to main content
Glama
ProofStreamai

ProofStream MCP Server

Official
by ProofStreamai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: checking status, getting pricing, and submitting requests. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'proofstream_verb_noun' using snake_case, e.g., check_status, get_pricing, submit_request.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is appropriate for a focused service that covers the main workflow: pricing inquiry, submission, and status checking.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the essential lifecycle: pricing, submission, and status check. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit cancellation tool, but the status includes cancellation.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a safe read operation via 'without making a request', but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether pricing data is cached/real-time.

    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?

    Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Every part of the description adds value.

    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 simple zero-param read tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details about the return format or any constraints (e.g., caching). Given no output schema, more context would help.

    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?

    No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by clarifying the tool is a read-only pricing lookup, which helps the agent understand its role beyond 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 clearly states the tool gets current ProofStream pricing and service details. The phrase 'without making a request' distinguishes it from mutation siblings like submit_request, but it could be more specific about what 'service details' encompasses.

    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?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling names (check_status, submit_request) provide context, but there is no direct statement about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details human on-site verification, livestream, report deliverables, and billing behavior (authorized but not charged until acceptance). Fully transparent.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Description is informative but lengthy (multiple paragraphs). However, it is well-structured with clear sections for services, urgency, and process. Could be more concise without losing value.

    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?

    Covers purpose, parameters, pricing, services, process, and billing. No output schema but mentions return of case_id. Adequate for complex tool with 14 parameters.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 93%, so baseline is 3. Description adds pricing context per service and urgency surcharges, and clarifies billing authorization. Adds meaningful value beyond schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool submits a human verification request to ProofStream for physical confirmation. It distinguishes from siblings (check_status and get_pricing) by specifying the action and scope.

    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?

    Explicitly states when to use ('physical confirmation of something in the real world') and lists services/urgency options. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but context is clear.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists all possible status values and their meanings, including what happens when completed (report and invoice emailed), providing comprehensive behavioral transparency.

    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?

    The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear opening sentence followed by bullet points for statuses. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

    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?

    The description is complete for a status-checking tool: it explains the input, the status values, and the outcome when completed. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior.

    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 single parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that the case ID comes from proofstream_submit_request and provides an example format, going beyond the schema's minimal description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool checks the status of a ProofStream verification request by case ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (proofstream_submit_request and proofstream_get_pricing) by focusing solely on status retrieval.

    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?

    The description implies usage after submitting a request, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tool names make the context clear enough for an agent to select correctly.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

proofstream-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

proofstream-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ProofStreamai/proofstream-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server