proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

hold_ls

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all stored holds with their live-resolved plans, reporting unresolved holds inline with errors and flagging cue drift against fresh computation.

Instructions

Every stored hold plus its live-resolved plan.

A hold that cannot currently resolve is reported inline (hold_error), never raised. Each item also carries cue_drift — a check between the hold's own owned cue and what it would compute fresh right now, since nothing stops a plain cue_rm/cue_add on that exact word from an unrelated caller.

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: -"hold_lsArguments"
```

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: unresolved holds are surfaced via an inline hold_error field rather than raised exceptions, and cue_drift exposes live recomputation differences caused by unrelated cue mutations. This is valuable context an agent would not otherwise know.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail about error behavior or cue_drift. No filler or repetition is present.

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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and the path parameter fully documented in the schema, the description supplies the important behavioral nuances that structured fields cannot. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly, though it could strengthen the case by mentioning when to prefer this over related hold/cue inspection tools.

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 single path parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline expectation when the schema carries the full burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource clearly: every stored hold plus its live-resolved plan and related diagnostics. It implies listing behavior through the tool name and content description, but lacks an explicit verb and does not directly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as hold_check or cue_ls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use hold_ls versus alternatives like hold_check, cue_ls, or cue_reresolve. The description provides useful context about inline errors and cue_drift, but leaves the selection criteria to the agent's inference.

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

Deploy Server