Proof Holdings

create_circle

Create a Circle — a named group of trusted contacts (the people-primitive powering Proof-Me and Approvals-on-Circle). Optionally seed initial members; each member's declared channels are stored so they can be invited to enroll.

Agent usage: after creating a Circle, add members with add_circle_member (or seed them here), then invite_circle_member to mint the enrollment deep link each contact taps to bind their messenger identity.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_circle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable name for the Circle
`members`	No	Initial members (name + optional declared channels)
`owner_name`	No	How this Circle's members know its owner ("Dad", "Giorgi"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it.
`profile_id`	No	Public profile (sub-account) to bind for branded messages — create-only
`proof_me_enabled`	No	Enable Proof-Me drills for this Circle

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	MongoDB ObjectId
`name`	No
`status`	No	Lifecycle state of a Circle (archived = soft-retired)
`members`	No
`user_id`	No
`created_at`	No
`owner_name`	No	How this Circle's members know its owner; null when unset
`profile_id`	No
`updated_at`	No
`environment`	No
`member_count`	No
`proof_me_enabled`	No

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": {
+    "created_at": {},
+    "environment": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId"
+    },
+    "member_count": {},
+    "members": {},
+    "name": {},
+    "owner_name": {
+      "description": "How this Circle's members know its owner; null when unset"
+    },
+    "profile_id": {},
+    "proof_me_enabled": {},
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Lifecycle state of a Circle (archived = soft-retired)"
+    },
+    "updated_at": {},
+    "user_id": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / members / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / owner_name

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "How this Circle's members know its owner (\"Dad\", \"Giorgi\"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it."
+}

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds non-annotation context that matters: this requires a Proof account, the client must authenticate first, and start_login will not unlock this tool. It also explains the downstream consequence of stored member channels (invitable to enroll). It does not cover error/idempotency behavior or what happens on duplicate names, so it stops short of 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the definition, then clearly segmented into 'Agent usage' and 'ACCESS' blocks. Each sentence carries information the agent needs — purpose, sequencing, and auth blocker — with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a create-mutation with 5 params, full schema coverage, an output schema and annotations, the description covers the gaps that structured fields cannot: the multi-step workflow and the authentication prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries parameter documentation; the description still adds intent by explaining that members may be seeded optionally and that declared channels persist for later enrollment, which clarifies why members belong on create at all. The remaining params (owner_name, profile_id, proof_me_enabled) are left entirely to their already-rich schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and immediately defines the domain concept: 'Create a Circle — a named group of trusted contacts'. It also explains the Circle's role (powering Proof-Me and Approvals-on-Circle), so an agent can distinguish it from list_circles, get_circle, update_circle and delete_circle without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'Agent usage' block gives an explicit ordering: create, then add_circle_member (or seed members here), then invite_circle_member to mint the enrollment link. It names the sibling tools to call and the alternative (seeding members inline), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed.

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.