Skip to main content
Glama
tydude001

proofcut

by tydude001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the proofcut MCP server's liveness and retrieve its version to confirm connectivity and compatibility before running other operations.

Instructions

Check that the proofcut MCP server is alive, and report its version.

project is the project every tool addresses when path is omitted, and bound_by says how it was chosen: -C at startup, or cwd because the server was started inside a project. Both are null when it is unbound.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.0
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"pingArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}New value: +true
  2. First observedv0.24.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the project and bound_by fields, which inform the agent about the server's configuration. It does not contradict any annotation and enriches the agent's understanding of the environment.

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 split into two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds necessary context about project binding. There is no fluff; every clause earns its place. It is front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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 simple health-check tool with no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the server's liveness check, version reporting, and the meaning of project/bound_by, which is all an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret the tool. Nothing 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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It correctly notes that project and bound_by are both null when unbound, which clarifies the server state without being parameter-related.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('proofcut MCP server'), and clearly distinguishes this health-check tool from all sibling tools, none of which perform a liveness check. It also adds the useful detail that it reports the server version, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly say 'use when you need to verify server connectivity', the purpose is self-evident and no sibling tool overlaps. It does provide valuable context about the project binding and how it was chosen, which helps an agent understand the server's current state and when this info is relevant. No exclusions or alternatives are needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools