Skip to main content
Glama

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_user_request

Create a new verification request to ask another user to share verified assets. Each asset is an object naming its type, e.g. { "type": "email" }.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsYesAssets to request, e.g. [{ "type": "email" }, { "type": "phone", "required": false }]
partial_okNoWhether partial asset sharing is acceptable (default: false)
action_typeNoPurpose of the request (default: verification); custom and confirmation also need an action_context title
callback_urlNoHTTPS webhook URL for request status updates
redirect_urlNoHTTPS URL to redirect the subject after completing the request
reference_idNoExternal reference ID for tracking
action_contextNoWhat the recipient is shown about why the assets are needed, e.g. { "title": "Confirm your contact details" }
expires_in_hoursNoHours until request expires (default: 168, i.e. 7 days)
public_profile_idNoPublic profile ID for branding
validity_requirementNoHow recently an existing proof must have been verified for the recipient to reuse it: a number and a unit, h hours, d days, w weeks or m months (30 days), e.g. "24h", "7d", "1m"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed23 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / action_context / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_context / description
      Previous value: -"Additional context about why assets are needed"New value: +"What the recipient is shown about why the assets are needed, e.g. { \"title\": \"Confirm your contact details\" }"
    • addedInput schema / properties / action_context / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "amount": {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "currency": {
+    "maxLength": 10,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": {
+    "maxLength": 500,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "entity": {
+    "maxLength": 200,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "title": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_context / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"object"
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_type / description
      Previous value: -"Purpose of the request (default: verification)"New value: +"Purpose of the request (default: verification); custom and confirmation also need an action_context title"
    • changedInput schema / properties / action_type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "verification",
-  "onboarding",
-  "compliance"
-]New value: +[
+  "verification",
+  "2fa",
+  "login",
+  "custom",
+  "confirmation",
+  "authorization"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / assets / description
      Previous value: -"Asset type identifiers to request (e.g. email, phone, identity)"New value: +"Assets to request, e.g. [{ \"type\": \"email\" }, { \"type\": \"phone\", \"required\": false }]"
    • addedInput schema / properties / assets / items / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / assets / items / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "allowed_channels": {
+    "description": "Channels the recipient may choose from",
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "whatsapp",
+        "telegram",
+        "sms",
+        "email",
+        "dns",
+        "http",
+        "auto",
+        "github",
+        "google",
+        "facebook",
+        "x",
+        "linkedin",
+        "instagram",
+        "youtube",
+        "tiktok",
+        "ethereum",
+        "solana",
+        "bitcoin",
+        "coinbase",
+        "kraken",
+        "telegram_bot_token"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxItems": 10,
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "channel": {
+    "description": "Verification channel to use for this asset",
+    "enum": [
+      "whatsapp",
+      "telegram",
+      "sms",
+      "email",
+      "dns",
+      "http",
+      "auto",
+      "github",
+      "google",
+      "facebook",
+      "x",
+      "linkedin",
+      "instagram",
+      "youtube",
+      "tiktok",
+      "ethereum",
+      "solana",
+      "bitcoin",
+      "coinbase",
+      "kraken",
+      "telegram_bot_token"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "identifier": {
+    "description": "The exact value to verify (e.g. an email address); omit to let the recipient choose",
+    "maxLength": 500,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "required": {
+    "description": "Whether this asset must be verified (default: true)",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "type": {
+    "description": "What to verify",
+    "enum": [
+      "phone",
+      "email",
+      "domain",
+      "social",
+      "wallet",
+      "telegram_bot"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / assets / items / required
      Added value: +[
+  "type"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / assets / items / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +"object"
    • changedInput schema / properties / callback_url / description
      Previous value: -"Webhook URL for request status updates"New value: +"HTTPS webhook URL for request status updates"
    • addedInput schema / properties / callback_url / maxLength
      Added value: +2000
    • addedInput schema / properties / callback_url / pattern
      Added value: +"^https:\\/\\/"
    • changedInput schema / properties / expires_in_hours / description
      Previous value: -"Hours until request expires (default: 24)"New value: +"Hours until request expires (default: 168, i.e. 7 days)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / public_profile_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / redirect_url / description
      Previous value: -"URL to redirect the subject after completing the request"New value: +"HTTPS URL to redirect the subject after completing the request"
    • addedInput schema / properties / redirect_url / maxLength
      Added value: +2000
    • addedInput schema / properties / redirect_url / pattern
      Added value: +"^https:\\/\\/"
    • addedInput schema / properties / reference_id / maxLength
      Added value: +255
    • addedInput schema / properties / reference_id / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / validity_requirement / description
      Previous value: -"Required validity level for shared assets"New value: +"How recently an existing proof must have been verified for the recipient to reuse it: a number and a unit, h hours, d days, w weeks or m months (30 days), e.g. \"24h\", \"7d\", \"1m\""
    • addedInput schema / properties / validity_requirement / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d+[hdwm]$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the request targets another user, the session/auth flow required to make the call succeed, and the shape of each asset object. It still says nothing about request lifecycle (e.g., what happens on expiry or partial sharing), but the auth disclosure is substantive added value.

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?

Two short blocks: purpose first, then the access prerequisite. The single illustrative asset example is arguably redundant with the schema, but nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth but omits tool-selection context against numerous siblings and any note on the request's lifecycle or response. It is adequate to invoke the tool, but not complete enough to route confidently among the create_* family.

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% and every one of the 10 parameters, including the nested asset object and action_context, is documented in the schema with defaults and constraints. The description's asset example ({"type": "email"}) only restates what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline 3 with no compensating detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create a new verification request") and clarifies the object ("ask another user to share verified assets"), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as create_verification_request, create_verification, or create_multi_channel_verification, leaving the agent to guess which request-creating tool applies.

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 ACCESS paragraph gives a real precondition (a Proof account) and an actionable recovery path (authenticate via /mcp or call start_login, then retry). That is genuine usage context, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many other create_* request tools, so selection among alternatives is left entirely to inference.

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