Proof Holdings

extend_request

Extend the expiration time of a pending verification request.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "extend_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification request ID to extend
`extends_by_hours`	No	Hours from now until the request expires, 1–720 (default: 168, i.e. 7 days). An expired request is reactivated.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Status of a verification request
`message`	Yes	`Verification request extended`, or `Verification request reactivated and extended` for a request that had expired (its `status` is then `pending` or `partial` again)
`success`	Yes
`expires_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / extends_by_hours

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hours from now until the request expires, 1–720 (default: 168, i.e. 7 days). An expired request is reactivated.",
+  "maximum": 720,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "The request's new expiry",
+  "properties": {
+    "expires_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "`Verification request extended`, or `Verification request reactivated and extended` for a request that had expired (its `status` is then `pending` or `partial` again)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Status of a verification request",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message",
+    "expires_at",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partially covered. The description adds the auth prerequisite, but does not mention that an expired request is reactivated or what other state changes accompany the extension — that key behavior lives only in the parameter schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then access requirements. No filler or restatement of the title, though the parenthetical Claude Code instruction is a bit verbose.

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 not be explained, and auth plus core purpose are covered. What's missing is the side-effect picture for a non-destructive but state-changing operation, which keeps it just short of complete.

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%, including the 1–720 hour range, the 7-day default, and the reactivation behavior, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but not value-adding.

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 (extend) and resource (expiration of a verification request) with a scoping qualifier (pending). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like cancel_verification_request or get_verification_request, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 second paragraph gives authentication/setup guidance (authenticate or start_login), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to extend versus cancel, recreate, or simply read the request, so selection among siblings is only implied.

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.