Proof Holdings

create_circle_member_drill

Fire an on-demand Proof-Me drill against one enrolled member — a real cross-channel identity challenge carrying the scheduled-safety-check label (the account owner practices confirming). Complements the automated daily drill + monthly reinforcement sweeps. On Pay as you go a live key is refused 422 plan_upgrade_required; a test key is not, and its drill reaches the member on Telegram only (400 no_channel when they have no verified Telegram channel).

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>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_circle_member_drill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Circle ID
`member_id`	Yes	Member ID to drill

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`status`	No
`confirm_channel`	No	Channel the CONFIRM was dispatched on
`single_channel_warning`	No	True when the owner has only one channel, so the CONFIRM ran on the same channel (degraded)

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": {
+    "confirm_channel": {
+      "description": "Channel the CONFIRM was dispatched on"
+    },
+    "id": {},
+    "single_channel_warning": {
+      "description": "True when the owner has only one channel, so the CONFIRM ran on the same channel (degraded)"
+    },
+    "status": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real weight and delivers: plan-tier gating (422 plan_upgrade_required on live PAYG keys), test-key behavior (Telegram-only delivery), and the 400 no_channel failure mode. It also states the authentication prerequisite and warns that start_login does not unlock this tool, which is exactly the kind of trap an agent would otherwise fall into.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and target, then error/permission conditions, then access — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense with jargon and parentheticals ("the account owner practices confirming"), which slightly taxes parsing, but every sentence conveys actionable information.

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 two-param action tool with annotations and an output schema, nothing material is missing: plan gating, channel limitation, plan-specific error codes, and the auth flow are all covered. Return values needn't be explained because an output schema exists.

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% (both params documented as Circle ID and Member ID to drill), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the notion that the member must already be enrolled in that circle, but contributes no format or format-edge detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Fire an on-demand Proof-Me drill against one enrolled member") and immediately disambiguates the payload as "a real cross-channel identity challenge carrying the scheduled-safety-check label." It also positions the tool relative to the automated daily drill and monthly reinforcement sweeps, so an agent can tell it apart from the scheduled paths.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the on-demand complement to automated daily/monthly drills, and adds concrete when-not conditions: a live key on Pay as you go is refused with 422 plan_upgrade_required, and a test key reaches Telegram only with 400 no_channel when no verified channel exists. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to use for the scheduled case, but the selection context is clear.

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.