Proof Holdings

get_confirmation_approval_link

Get the approval link of the HITL config owner: it is decided with the config's own key, so it is for the owner to approve or deny the confirmation themselves. An approver cannot use it — an approver's link goes only to their own channel, and "Send again" (POST /api/v1/confirmations/{id}/resend, which no tool calls yet) is what sends it there again. Every call returns the same owner link until "Send again" reaches the owner; "Send again" replaces it, and the next call returns a new one. Calling this tool again cancels nothing, so it is safe to call again to show the link again. The link expires when the confirmation does. Only works for pending confirmations.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_confirmation_approval_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Confirmation ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approval_url`	Yes

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": {},
+  "description": "Regenerated approval link for a pending confirmation",
+  "properties": {
+    "approval_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "approval_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Substantially richer than the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which on their own are ambiguous here. The description discloses idempotency ('returns the same owner link until Send again', 'calling this tool again cancels nothing'), link expiry coupled to confirmation expiry, the pending-only precondition, and a detailed auth requirement including the note that start_login does NOT open this tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and the auth block is clearly separated, but the middle is convoluted: 'Send again' is explained twice across two clauses and again in a parenthetical route, and the nested quotation with the raw endpoint path ('which no tool calls yet') is hard to parse. Trimming the repeated Send-again explanation would tighten it without losing 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: pending-only scope, idempotency, expiry, owner-vs-approver semantics, and the authentication prerequisite. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the Confirmation ID. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lifecycle detail about the id (e.g. where to obtain it) beyond what the schema and output schema provide. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — get the approval link of the HITL config owner — and immediately distinguishes it from the approver's link, which is the main source of confusion for this domain. It does not name a sibling tool it competes with (get_hitl, get_confirmation, request_hitl_authorization), so the routing is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Exclusions are stated concretely: 'An approver cannot use it', and 'Only works for pending confirmations'. It also explains that the approver's own channel delivery is handled by 'Send again', which no tool calls yet. It stops short of saying which tool to use when the confirmation is not pending or when you are the approver, so the alternative path is described but not routable.

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.