proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

review_add

Destructive

Register a rendered file, sheet, or A/B variant for review serving by pointing a name at its source, replacing entries while keeping verdicts. Controls must byte-match their baseline.

Instructions

Never copies source — a render already lives in renders/, a sheet in reframe_sheet's own directory — this just points name at it, so a served round has something to stream and a verdict has something to attach to.

Registering a name that already exists replaces that entry, and the verdict recorded against it stays — so re-pointing a name at a different file leaves yesterday's answer attached to today's bytes. Register the new file under a new name unless replacing it is what you mean.

kind is one of render, sheet, ab, control. A control requires baseline, the name of an already-registered item, and the two files' sha256 must match — a mismatch refuses the call. This is the rule the round that went wrong exists to enforce (HISTORY.md § The bumper the teaser never had): a page once served three cuts, one mislabelled "control" when it was a different, later render. Nothing is labelled a control here unless it is byte-identical to what it claims.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	One of `render`, `sheet`, `ab`, `control`.
`name`	Yes	What to call this item in the served round. Re-using a name replaces that entry while its verdict stays attached.
`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.
`about`	No	One plain line the served page prints under the name, saying what this item is (how it was made, what differs) — a reviewer judges nothing they cannot tell apart.
`source`	Yes	The file to point at — never copied. A render already lives in `renders/`, a sheet in the sheet directory.
`baseline`	No	Required for `kind="control"`: the name of the already-registered item this one claims to be identical to. Both files' sha256 must match or the call is refused — nothing is labelled a control here unless it is byte-identical to what it claims.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.37.0Sep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / about

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "One plain line the served page prints under the name, saying what this item is (how it was made, what differs) — a reviewer judges nothing they cannot tell apart.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

Changed15 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / baseline / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / baseline / description

Added value: +"Required for `kind=\"control\"`: the name of the already-registered item this one claims to be identical to. Both files' sha256 must match or the call is refused — nothing is labelled a control here unless it is byte-identical to what it claims."

removedInput schema / properties / baseline / title
```
Removed value: -"Baseline"
```
addedInput schema / properties / baseline / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Added value: +"One of `render`, `sheet`, `ab`, `control`."

removedInput schema / properties / kind / title
```
Removed value: -"Kind"
```

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"What to call this item in the served round. Re-using a name replaces that entry while its verdict stays attached."

removedInput schema / properties / name / title
```
Removed value: -"Name"
```

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 / source / description

Added value: +"The file to point at — never copied. A render already lives in `renders/`, a sheet in the sheet directory."

removedInput schema / properties / source / title
```
Removed value: -"Source"
```
removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"review_addArguments"
```

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 destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses crucial behavioral details: source files are never copied, re-registering an existing name replaces the entry while keeping the old verdict attached, and control items require a matching sha256 or the call is refused. These side effects and safety constraints are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with the most important behavioral warnings. The historical anecdote about the control rule is somewhat long, but it reinforces a safety-critical constraint and is not filler. It is structured and readable, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

The description covers the registration semantics, non-copying behavior, replacement effects, verdict persistence, and the control validation rule. Combined with a fully described input schema and an output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that source is only pointed to and never copied, that name replacement preserves verdicts, that kind accepts specific values, and that baseline is mandatory for control and must match byte-for-byte. Since schema coverage is already 100%, this extra semantic context meaningfully raises the value.

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-resource pair: 'Register a rendered file, sheet or A/B member for proofcut review serve.' It states exactly what the tool does and for what purpose, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like review_verdict and review_list because it focuses on registration for a served review round.

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 description clearly conveys when to use the tool: when adding an item to a proofcut review round. It also gives practical usage guidance, such as registering under a new name unless replacement is intended, and explains the control/baseline requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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

Deploy Server