proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

review_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all items registered for a project's review round, including each item's verdict, note, and when it was recorded. Retrieve review status in read-only mode.

Instructions

List every item registered for this project's review round, and its verdict.

Read-only. Returns items (each review_add registration: name, kind, project-relative path, sha256 and any control baseline) and verdicts (keyed by item name: the verdict, its note and when it was recorded). Items are registered with review_add, judged with review_verdict, and served to a phone by proofcut review serve.

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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 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"
+]

removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"review_listArguments"
```

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms read-only and adds detail on the return structure (items and verdicts). It does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then workflow context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 tool is a simple list operation with one well-documented parameter, safety covered by annotations, and an output schema. The description explains the return structure and how it relates to sibling tools, which is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential 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?

Only one optional parameter (path) exists, and its schema description covers 100% of its semantics, including default behavior and binding rules. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct given the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every item registered for this project's review round, and its verdict'). The description distinguishes it from siblings like review_add (registration) and review_verdict (judging) by clearly scoping its function. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides context on how it fits into the review workflow by mentioning review_add and review_verdict. It implies when to use it (to inspect registrations and verdicts) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions. The related-tools note gives enough situational awareness for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Deploy Server