proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

hold_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check an existing render's holds by transcribing each hold's span and comparing edge levels to the quiet floor, reporting cut-off words or noise-floor cliffs instead of refusing.

Instructions

Transcribe each hold's own span off render and check its seams.

For each stored hold: the required phrase, transcribed off the render at the hold's live-resolved span, plus the level right at each edge against the quiet floor just after it — "still loud" (a word cut off) or a "noise-floor cliff" (a hard drop with nowhere graceful to land). Report, never refuse — a post-hoc listening check on a render that already exists, verify's and film_check's own stance.

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.
`render`	Yes	The rendered file to listen to. Each hold's span is resolved live against the current edit and transcribed off this file.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 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"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / render / description

Added value: +"The rendered file to listen to. Each hold's span is resolved live against the current edit and transcribed off this file."

removedInput schema / properties / render / title
```
Removed value: -"Render"
```
removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"hold_checkArguments"
```

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by explaining the actual check mechanism: comparing level at each edge against the quiet floor just after it, and classifying results as 'still loud' or 'noise-floor cliff.' This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: a front-loaded headline, a compact explanation of the seam-check logic, and a bolded behavioral stance. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or filler.

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 specialized auditing tool, the description explains the domain concepts, the exact input source, what is examined, and the reporting philosophy. An output schema exists, so lack of return-value detail is acceptable, and the schema covers path/resolution behavior.

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%, so the schema itself already documents `render` and `path` thoroughly. The description reinforces `render`'s role by mentioning live-resolved spans, but it does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond the 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Transcribe each hold's own span off render and check its seams.' It clearly identifies this as a checking/verification action for stored holds, distinguishing it from sibling hold_* mutation tools and aligning it with verify/film_check's report stance.

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?

Gives clear context: this is a 'post-hoc listening check on a render that already exists' and should 'report, never refuse.' It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools as replacements, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

Deploy Server