Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

export_authorizations

Read-only

Export authorizations as CSV or JSON. Supports date range and status filtering. Maximum 10,000 records.

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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "export_authorizations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd date filter (ISO 8601)
fromNoStart date filter (ISO 8601)
formatNoExport format (default: json)
statusNoFilter by status

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
totalNo

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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {},
+    "total": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description still adds real behavior: an authentication prerequisite with concrete remediation steps and a hard 10,000-record ceiling. It does not say whether the cap truncates silently or errors, which is the one meaningful gap.

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 capability is front-loaded in the first sentence and the access note is a separate block, so an agent can scan it quickly. The parenthetical 'Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate' is a bit implementation-specific but earns its place as actionable remediation.

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 no explanation, and auth plus the record cap are covered. Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior at the 10,000-record boundary and whether from/to bounds are inclusive.

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%, so all four parameters (from, to, format, status) are already documented, including enums and the json default. The description's mention of date range, status, and format merely mirrors the schema without adding format or inclusivity semantics, so 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 ('Export authorizations') plus the supported formats and filters, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling export_data or explain why one would export rather than call list_authorizations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Supports date range and status filtering' and the access note tells the agent a Proof account is required and that start_login will not unlock this tool. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_authorizations or export_data, nor what to do when the result set exceeds 10,000 records.

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