Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cancel_user_request

Destructive

Cancel a pending verification request. Only the creator can cancel.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), or sign in with start_login — a session opens this tool — then call this tool again.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_user_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVerification request ID to cancel

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Generic success response",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description still adds real value: it scopes the effect to pending requests, states the creator-only permission model, and discloses a two-step auth flow (authenticate, then re-call). It does not explicitly say the cancellation is irreversible or what happens to a non-pending request.

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 core action and its permission rule come first, with the access/authentication caveat correctly demoted to a second paragraph. The ACCESS block is somewhat verbose but is operationally necessary for an agent that may be unauthenticated.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: effect, state restriction, permission model, and the auth recovery path. Only the reversibility question is left unaddressed.

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% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id's format, accepted prefixes, or where to obtain a valid one, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description leads with a specific verb+resource ("Cancel a pending verification request") and names the state constraint (pending). It does not, however, distinguish this from the near-identical sibling cancel_verification_request, and describing a user request as a "verification request" actively blurs the line between them.

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?

"Only the creator can cancel" gives an explicit authorization precondition, and the ACCESS block tells the agent exactly how to recover when unauthenticated. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. cancel_verification_request, get_verification_request) or stating when not to cancel, so it is clear rather than complete.

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

All Proof Holdings toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources