ProofX - Content Protection for Creators

protect_content

Destructive

Register and protect text content with ProofX cryptographic signatures. The content is sent to the ProofX server where the SHA-256 hash is computed and registered for tamper-proof protection. Use this when a user wants to protect their text, article, poem, script, code, or other content they created.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No	A title for the content being protected	Untitled
`creator_id`	No	ProofX creator ID (8-char hex). If not provided, uses the authenticated session. Get one free at proofx.co.uk
`content_text`	Yes	The text content to protect (article, poem, script, code, lyrics, etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed6 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / content_text

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The text content to protect (article, poem, script, code, lyrics, etc.)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / creator_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ProofX creator ID (8-char hex). If not provided, uses the authenticated session. Get one free at proofx.co.uk",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / title

Added value: +{
+  "default": "Untitled",
+  "description": "A title for the content being protected",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "content_text"
+]
```

Changed6 schema fields changedJul 31, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

removedInput schema / properties / content_text

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The text content to protect (article, poem, script, code, lyrics, etc.)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / creator_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ProofX creator ID (8-char hex). If not provided, uses the authenticated session. Get one free at proofx.co.uk",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / title

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "Untitled",
-  "description": "A title for the content being protected",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "content_text"
-]
```

First observedFeb 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds process detail (hash computed and registered server-side), but does not clarify the nature of the destructive behavior (e.g., whether repeated calls overwrite protections) or disclose return values. Given annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but not exceptional behavioral context.

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 a compact two sentences: the first states the core action, the second elaborates on the process and usage context. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description covers purpose and usage but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a registration ID) and the consequences of repeated calls. Given the sibling tools for verification, a hint on output would improve completeness.

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%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., creator_id explains where to get one, title has default). The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond listing content types, which reinforces content_text but does not enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Register and protect text content with ProofX cryptographic signatures.' It includes specific examples of content types (article, poem, script, code) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_hash and verify_content by focusing on registration and protection.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this when a user wants to protect their text, article, poem, script, code, or other content they created.' It provides clear context but stops short of naming alternative tools or specifying when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

All ProofX - Content Protection for Creators tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: local hash computation, creator profile lookup, own account info, content protection, verification by ID, and verification by hash. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Five of six tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compute_hash, get_creator, protect_content, verify_content, verify_hash). Only 'my_account' deviates as a possessive noun phrase, but it remains clear and conventional for account info.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a content protection server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or excess, fitting the domain naturally.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows (hash computation, protection, verification by ID or hash, creator lookup) are covered. Missing features like listing a creator's protected content or unprotecting content are minor gaps that don't break the primary use case.

Resources

Need Help?