proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview what the last edits did before undoing them. Compares snapshots to show added and removed clip content, reorders, and manifest changes.

Instructions

What the last steps mutations did — what undo that many times would roll back.

Read-only. Compares the snapshot every mutation already leaves against the live project. timeline.removed and timeline.added are source spans per clip with the words they carry and where they played, so a cut reads as the words it took out rather than as every later segment moving; a pure reorder is reordered; spans under 50 ms (a frame's edge moving) are only counted, in removed_slivers/added_slivers. manifest.keys lists each changed manifest key: records added/removed, and changed field by field where a record has a name (a cue by its word, a framing window by its in-point, a clip by its id); a word-addressed record echoes its word in brackets with three either side. Lists past 40 entries are cut, with exact _counts beside them. unchanged: true means the snapshot and the project agree. Words come from the transcripts as they stand now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	The project directory to act on. Omit it — the usual case — when this server is bound to a project (started as `proofcut -C DIR mcp`, or inside a project; `ping` says which): it then resolves to that one bound project, a relative path resolves against it, and a path outside it is refused by name. Unbound, `path` is the whole address and omitting it refuses rather than guessing.
`steps`	No	How many mutations back to compare against, from 1 (the last one — what a single undo would roll back) up to the undo depth. The reply covers everything since that point, not only the oldest step.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It goes well beyond the annotations by explaining precisely how the comparison is computed, what fields appear ('timeline.removed', 'timeline.added', 'manifest.keys'), how edge cases like reorders and sub-50 ms slivers are represented, and that lists past 40 entries are truncated with `_count`s. This gives an agent a clear model of the tool's behavior and output semantics.

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 dense but every sentence contributes meaningful behavioral or output-semantic detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only guarantee, then systematically explains output structure with concrete examples. Its length is justified by the complexity of the output, though it could be slightly more scannable with explicit field lists.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the detailed input schemas, the annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves on edge cases, what the output fields mean, truncation behavior, and the meaning of `unchanged: true`. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret its results.

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%, with both `path` and `steps` already documented in detail. The tool description references `steps` in the opening sentence but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides naturally, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool computes: 'What the last `steps` mutations did — what `undo` that many times would roll back.' It then states the concrete mechanism, 'Compares the snapshot every mutation already leaves against the live project,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The 'Read-only' tag and the contrast with `undo` distinguish it from the sibling tool that actually performs the rollback.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to inspect what recent mutations changed and to preview what an undo would revert, without actually undoing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion conditions, but the 'what undo would roll back' phrasing and 'Read-only' marker make the use case reasonably unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server