proofcut

by tydude001

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

lexicon_rm

Destructive

Delete one lexicon entry by key, refusing if the key is not present. Use lexicon_ls to see available entries.

Instructions

Remove one lexicon entry; refuses a key the lexicon does not hold.

The caption goes back to whisper's spelling. lexicon_ls lists the entries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	`hear` (default) or `say`: which table the entry is in.	hear
`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.
`plan`	No	Resolve the whole call and report what it would do, writing nothing. Prefer it over doing the thing and undoing it.
`heard`	Yes	The entry's key, matched the way `lexicon_add` matches it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.43.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

In addition to the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that an unknown key is refused and that captions revert to whisper's spelling after removal. These are meaningful side-effect and failure-mode details an agent could not get from annotations alone.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and error behavior, and the second gives a necessary side effect plus the listing alternative. It is front-loaded and every clause contributes.

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?

Given a rich schema, a destructiveHint annotation, and an output schema, this description covers the core action, the relevant failure case, and the side effect that matters after deletion. The `plan` dry-run option is already explained in the parameter schema, so nothing essential 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the schema already explains `kind`, `path`, and `plan` thoroughly. The description earns a 4 by adding the contract for the `heard` key: a key not held by the lexicon is refused.

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 and resource — 'Remove one lexicon entry' — and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail: it refuses keys the lexicon does not hold. It also names `lexicon_ls` as the listing counterpart, so it is clearly separable from the sibling list and add 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 intended use is stated plainly (remove a single lexicon entry) and the description explicitly points to `lexicon_ls` for inspecting entries, which is the natural pre-removal workflow. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server