Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_profile_assets

Read-only

Get available verified assets that can be displayed on the user's profile. Returns assets eligible for public proof display.

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": "get_profile_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profile_idNoThe sub-account whose shown proofs set each asset's is_public flag (24 hex characters); omitted, the primary

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / profile_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The sub-account whose shown proofs set each asset's is_public flag (24 hex characters); omitted, the primary",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "assets": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "channel": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "identifier": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "is_public": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "proof_expires_at": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "verified_at": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "type",
+          "identifier",
+          "channel",
+          "is_public"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "assets"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the read semantics. Beyond annotations the description discloses the auth gate, the fact that start_login will not satisfy it, and the exact remediation path (authenticate, then call again) — real workflow context an agent would otherwise discover only by failing. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the ACCESS block is set apart, which is the right ordering. The authentication banner is longer than the tool description itself, but every clause in it (requirement, path, explicit non-solution) removes a likely failure mode.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the auth prerequisite — the main non-obvious hazard for a one-parameter read tool — is fully covered. Only the relationship to adjacent asset-listing tools is left unstated.

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 the schema itself explains that profile_id is the sub-account whose shown-proofs set drive is_public, including the 24-hex pattern and the primary-account default. The description adds nothing about profile_id, so the 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 with scope: "Get available verified assets that can be displayed on the user's profile," plus the eligibility qualifier "assets eligible for public proof display." That distinguishes it from the sibling list_assets/get_asset by intent, though the description never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (a Proof account) and an explicit exclusion: "start_login does NOT open this tool," which routes the agent away from the wrong sibling and tells it to re-authenticate instead. No positive alternative is named for the non-profile case (e.g., list_assets), leaving one branch 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