proofcut

by tydude001

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

hold_under_rm

Destructive

Restore the music bed over a VO span by removing its hold. Errors if no hold exists at that address.

Instructions

Drop the film audio under the VO addressed by (clip_id, word_index_start).

The inverse of hold_under: that span plays the VO alone again, and the music bed — which a hold gates out — comes back across it. Refused when no entry sits at that address, so a second call says so rather than doing nothing quietly. The audio was a manifest entry, not a splice, so no word moves and undo restores it.

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.
`clip_id`	Yes	The VO track the entry was addressed against.
`word_index_start`	Yes	The span's first VO word — the entry's address, with `clip_id`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / clip_id / description

Added value: +"The VO track the entry was addressed against."

removedInput schema / properties / clip_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Clip Id"
```

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 / word_index_start / description

Added value: +"The span's first VO word — the entry's address, with `clip_id`."

removedInput schema / properties / word_index_start / title
```
Removed value: -"Word Index Start"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"hold_under_rmArguments"

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the basic mutation safety profile. The description adds context beyond that: it explains the effect on the music bed, the refusal on missing entries, and the undo/restore behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 roughly four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the primary action, the inverse relationship, the error behavior, and the undo effect. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff, though a slightly tighter phrasing could be imagined.

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 operation with a clear output schema (present), the description covers the main effect, the inverse counterpart, the failure mode, and the reversibility. It omits only generic prerequisites like permissions, which are likely project-wide. No material information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters (path, clip_id, word_index_start) are already described in the schema. The description references the address pair but doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond reinforcing that they form the address. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Drop the film audio under the VO addressed by (clip_id, word_index_start)'. It clearly identifies the tool as the inverse of hold_under, distinguishing it from the sibling tool without ambiguity. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names the inverse relationship to hold_under, telling the agent exactly when to use this tool instead of that one. It also states the refusal behavior when no entry exists, which is a key precondition. This is strong guidance for selection among siblings.

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

Deploy Server