proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

transcript_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-check an attached transcript for overlaps, repeats, near-duplicates, and suspect durations, catching invented words from retake splices. Read-only.

Instructions

Re-check an already-attached transcript against itself.

Returns the same four findings attach_transcript does — near_duplicates, suspect_durations, overlaps, repeats — for a transcript attached earlier, whose findings were reported once and are otherwise gone. Omit clip_id for every clip that has a transcript.

Read overlaps before anything derived from this transcript is drawn on screen. A seam there is whisper reading across a retake splice and interleaving both takes, which invents words nobody said — and they read as ordinary English, so a human proofread finds some and is blind to the rest. repeats catches the other shape a retake takes: one that survived transcription as distinct, cleanly-timed duplicated words rather than as an interleaved seam. Reads only; it never writes.

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.
`clip_id`	No	One clip to re-check. Omit it for every clip that has a transcript.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / clip_id / anyOf

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

addedInput schema / properties / clip_id / description

Added value: +"One clip to re-check. Omit it for every clip that has a transcript."

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

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: -"transcript_checksArguments"

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Reads only; it never writes' — consistent. Beyond that, it adds genuinely valuable behavioral context: the warning that an overlaps seam means whisper is inventing words nobody said, and that a human proofread is blind to some of them, plus the ordering directive to read overlaps before drawing on screen. This is substantial context beyond what annotations provide.

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 purpose and return findings are front-loaded in the first sentence. The description is long (~130 words), and the deep-dive into overlaps/retakes is verbose, but every sentence carries actionable weight — the invented-words danger and the read-overlaps-first directive justify the length. Slightly over-detailed but not wasteful.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the four findings, their significance, the clip_id omission case, and the safety-critical ordering. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's clip_id guidance ('Omit clip_id for every clip that has a transcript') is verbatim identical to the schema's own clip_id description, adding no new meaning. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Re-check an already-attached transcript against itself') and lists the exact four findings returned, tying itself to sibling attach_transcript ('Returns the same four findings attach_transcript does'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling that performs the original attachment.

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 phrase 'already-attached' and 'attached earlier, whose findings were reported once and are otherwise gone' clearly scopes the use case to re-checking prior transcripts. The clip_id omission rule ('Omit clip_id for every clip that has a transcript') gives practical invocation guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative to prefer for first-time checks, but the relationship to attach_transcript is strongly implied.

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

Deploy Server