Proof Holdings

cancel_verification_request

Destructive

Cancel a pending verification request. Only pending requests can be cancelled.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

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_verification_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification request ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	MongoDB ObjectId
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "status",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful pending-only constraint and the authentication requirement, but doesn't say what happens to the request afterward (deleted vs marked cancelled) or whether it's recoverable — a notable gap for a destructive operation.

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 behavior and the pending-only constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the access note separated below. The auth block is slightly verbose but earns its place by preventing a failed call cycle.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully schema-documented. The description covers the state pre-condition and auth needs, leaving only the post-cancellation effect unstated.

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% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no further detail on ID format or source (e.g., from list_verification_requests), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a pending verification request') and adds the state constraint. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling cancel_user_request, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The pre-condition 'Only pending requests can be cancelled' is clear and actionable, telling the agent when the call will succeed. However, it offers no routing to alternatives such as cancel_user_request or get_verification_request, leaving the choice to be inferred from the name.

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

All Proof Holdings tools Inspect

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.