proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

migrate_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Upgrade legacy proofcut project manifests to the current schema. Use plan mode to preview version and steps before making changes.

Instructions

Bring an older project manifest forward to the current schema version.

Every other tool refuses a project written by an older proofcut rather than guessing at a layout it does not recognise; this is what clears that. It is forward-only, and it copies the manifest into cache/history/ before writing. plan=True reports the version and the steps without writing, which is how to ask what a project is before deciding to change it. A project whose manifest is still lucid.json (written before the rename) is renamed to proofcut.json first, reported as the first step.

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.
`plan`	No	Resolve the whole call and report what it would do, writing nothing. Prefer it over doing the thing and undoing it.

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 / plan / description

Added value: +"Resolve the whole call and report what it would do, writing nothing. Prefer it over doing the thing and undoing it."

removedInput schema / properties / plan / title
```
Removed value: -"Plan"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"migrate_projectArguments"

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (delete/rebuild, idempotent, read-write), the description discloses that it copies the manifest into cache/history before writing, is forward-only, and handles the pre-rename lucid.json case. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 information-dense with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds justification, safety behavior, plan usage, and an edge case in logical order. Every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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 migration tool with an output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the description covers the what, when, why, safety mechanism, dry-run alternative, and an important edge case. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, and both path and plan already carry detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minor reinforcement about plan=True reporting version and steps, but it does not fundamentally extend what the schema already states.

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: 'Bring an older project manifest forward to the current schema version.' It also distinguishes this tool from everything else by noting that 'every other tool refuses' such projects, so the agent can identify exactly when migrate_project applies.

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?

It gives explicit context for use: older project manifests that other tools refuse. It also explains the plan=True mode as the safe way to inspect before changing, which is a clear usage directive. The 'forward-only' statement further sets expectations about directionality.

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

Deploy Server