Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

claim_username

Claim a unique username for the authenticated user's public profile. Usernames must be 3-30 characters, alphanumeric and underscores only.

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": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "claim_username"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYesUsername to claim (3-30 chars, alphanumeric and underscores)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes
profile_urlYesPath of the public profile
username_claimed_atYes

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": "The claimed username",
+  "properties": {
+    "profile_url": {
+      "description": "Path of the public profile",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "username": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "username_claimed_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "username",
+    "username_claimed_at",
+    "profile_url"
+  ],
+  "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?

Annotations only say it is a non-read, non-destructive mutation; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral context of auth gating and the session-opening flow. It does not cover what happens on a taken username, whether the claim can be changed later, or whether uniqueness is globally enforced, which keeps it below a 5.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence and the access note is separated into its own line. The constraint sentence duplicates the schema verbatim, which is mild waste, but nothing is bloated.

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?

With only one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining gaps: auth requirements and constraint bounds. The main omission is post-mutation behavior, such as consequences for an existing username, but that is a modest gap for a single-field tool.

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% and the schema already encodes the 3-30 length and alphanumeric/underscore pattern, so the description's restatement of those constraints adds no meaning beyond what the caller can read in the field definition. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: claim a unique username for the authenticated user's public profile. It is clearly distinct from neighboring tools like update_my_profile or create_profile, though it does not explicitly name what differentiates it from the profile-mutation siblings.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated, and the description names the exact recovery path (/mcp authenticate or start_login followed by a retry). It stops short of stating when a caller should not use this tool, such as when a username is already set.

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