Check if digital content is protected with ProofX by its content ID. Returns the creator, protection date, signature status, and content details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content_id | Yes | The ProofX content ID (8-character hex string, e.g. 'a1b2c3d4') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / content_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The ProofX content ID (8-character hex string, e.g. 'a1b2c3d4')",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "content_id"
+]Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / content_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The ProofX content ID (8-character hex string, e.g. 'a1b2c3d4')",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "content_id"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return fields but does not explain error behavior (e.g., missing content ID) or other behavioral nuances. Adds some value beyond annotations but not substantial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every sentence contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the purpose and return fields. However, without an output schema, it could detail the return structure (e.g., data types, optionality). Slightly incomplete but not deficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes content_id as an 8-character hex string. The description merely says 'by its content ID', adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('check if...protected') and the resource ('digital content with ProofX by its content ID'), and enumerates the specific return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'protect_content' and 'verify_hash'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'verify_hash' or 'protect_content'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
Six tools is well-scoped for a content protection server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or excess, fitting the domain naturally.
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.