proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cue_reresolve

DestructiveIdempotent

Re-resolves phrase-addressed cues and marks to the current transcript after a re-record, reporting moved positions. Optionally updates word indexes when matches are unambiguous, leaving ambiguous ones untouched.

Instructions

Re-resolve every phrase-addressed cue, unspoken mark and music-bed boundary against the current transcript, and report what moved.

A re-record replaces a clip's transcript wholesale, and every stored word_index on that clip potentially now addresses the wrong word — already true today of a plain word-index entry, and this does not close that gap for one. What it closes it for is an entry that also carries the phrase it was placed with: re-resolving says where that same wording landed now, without hand re-indexing a whole cue table.

apply=False (default): report only, nothing is written — the same posture as reframe_detect/unspoken_detect. apply=True rewrites word_index in place for every entry whose phrase still resolves to exactly one match; anything ambiguous or unresolved is reported and left untouched, never guessed. An entry with no stored phrase is reported as "action": "unchanged (no phrase to re-resolve)", not silently skipped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`apply`	No	Rewrite `word_index` wherever the stored phrase still resolves to exactly one match. Off by default: it reports first, and anything ambiguous or unresolved is reported and left untouched either way.
`clip_id`	No	Re-resolve one clip's entries. Omit it for every clip.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / apply / description

Added value: +"Rewrite `word_index` wherever the stored phrase still resolves to exactly one match. Off by default: it reports first, and anything ambiguous or unresolved is reported and left untouched either way."

removedInput schema / properties / apply / title
```
Removed value: -"Apply"
```

removedInput schema / properties / clip_id / anyOf

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

addedInput schema / properties / clip_id / description

Added value: +"Re-resolve one clip's entries. Omit it for every clip."

removedInput schema / properties / clip_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Clip Id"
```
addedInput schema / properties / clip_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

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: -"cue_reresolveArguments"

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description fully complements them: it discloses exactly what gets destroyed (word_index rewritten in place), the never-guess policy for ambiguous/unresolved entries, the special 'action': 'unchanged (no phrase to re-resolve)' report, and the apply=False default safety posture. No contradiction with annotations; substantial added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome before the 'why', and the paragraphs are organized by concern (motivation, then apply semantics). It is somewhat long, but every sentence carries load — the re-record/word_index background and the no-phrase edge case earn their place. No fluff.

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?

For a destructive, state-mutating tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers apply semantics, ambiguity/unresolved handling, the no-phrase case, and the path-binding behavior is already fully documented in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is well-documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining the semantic requirement that an entry must carry a stored phrase to be re-resolvable, and how apply interacts with ambiguity — detail not derivable from the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('re-resolve') and precise resource ('phrase-addressed cues, unspoken marks, music-bed boundaries') and states the outcome ('report what moved'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like resolve_phrase (single phrase lookup) and the unspoken_*/reframe_detect report tools because it targets the re-record/word_index-invalidation scenario explicitly.

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 a concrete trigger condition (a re-record replacing a clip's transcript, invalidating stored word_index entries) and explains the apply=False vs apply=True decision, explicitly aligning the report-only posture with reframe_detect/unspoken_detect. It does not explicitly name resolve_phrase as the alternative for single-entry lookup, but the scenario framing makes routing reasonably clear.

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

Deploy Server