Skip to main content
Glama
tydude001

proofcut

by tydude001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe proofcut's external binary dependencies and name each one's trap. Failing checks include the exact fix, and nothing is installed or written, so you can resolve issues before starting a project.

Instructions

Probe every external binary proofcut depends on, and name each one's trap.

Takes no project — it answers the question asked before there is one. Report-only: nothing is installed and nothing is written. ok reads the required section alone; the four optional entries each gate one feature (cards, describe, reframe_detect, vo_synth) and everything else works without them.

Every failing entry carries the fix, not just the ✗ — where melt actually lives, why PyPI's auto-editor is the wrong program, what to set on a box with no display.

server says which project this server is bound to and how (ping's own answer), since that decides which path a call may name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.0
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"doctorArguments"
  2. First observedv0.24.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful detail: 'nothing is installed and nothing is written,' feature-gated optional sections, and failures that include fixes. This goes well beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes a distinct fact: scope, side-effect-free behavior, optional feature gates, failure messaging, and server binding. The structure is coherent and front-loads the main purpose.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what is probed, what is not touched, how output is organized, and how failing entries are reported. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip and the schema is trivially covered. The description reinforces the only semantic point: it 'takes no project,' which is the key thing a caller needs to know.

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 states a specific diagnostic action: 'Probe every external binary proofcut depends on, and name each one's trap.' It also clarifies the tool takes no project, clearly distinguishing it from project-scoped sibling tools.

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 strong context for when to use it: before a project exists ('answers the question asked before there is one') and as a report-only check. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to prefer instead, but the no-project framing is enough to route an agent correctly.

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