proofcut

by tydude001

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

continuity_ls

Read-onlyIdempotent

List accepted continuity findings, showing which are still live and whether they still match the accepted mark.

Instructions

Every accepted continuity finding, with whether it is still live and whether it still matches what was accepted (stale).

A finding that has disappeared entirely — the shot was re-cued away, or the issue was fixed — reports still_found: False rather than stale, since there is nothing live left to disagree with the mark.

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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / path / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / path / description

Added value: +"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."

removedInput schema / properties / path / title
```
Removed value: -"Path"
```

addedInput schema / properties / path / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"continuity_lsArguments"

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about how findings are reported: it explains the difference between stale (still exists but disagrees with the mark) and still_found=False (disappeared entirely). This clarifies the output semantics beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't discuss edge cases like empty results or sorting.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph clarifies a nuanced behavioral distinction. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The structure efficiently conveys the tool's scope and output semantics.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the path parameter is fully documented, the description covers the essential semantics of what findings are returned and the status fields. It explains the key distinction between stale and still_found, which is critical for correct interpretation. Minor details like ordering or pagination are not mentioned, but these are likely covered by the output schema. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The single parameter `path` is 100% covered by the schema, including a detailed description of how it resolves when bound or unbound. The tool description does not repeat parameter details, but with full schema coverage, the baseline is 3. No additional semantic value is needed from the 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 lists accepted continuity findings and defines the status semantics (live vs stale vs still_found). It specifies the resource (accepted continuity findings) and the verb (list), distinguishing it from continuity_accept, continuity_reject, and continuity_check. The distinction between stale and still_found adds precision, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implicitly the listing counterpart to continuity_accept and continuity_reject, and it contrasts with continuity_check, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The semantics are clear, but the tool does not proactively route the agent away from sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server