Skip to main content
Glama

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

list_templates

Read-only

List the custom message templates of one sub-account (project), organized by channel and message type. Templates belong to a project, not to the account: profile_id picks it — omitted, a project-bound key lists its own project and an account-wide key the primary project.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
profile_idNoThe sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / profile_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — an authentication prerequisite with a specific flow ('Authenticate this client ... then call this tool again') and the notable warning that 'start_login does NOT open this tool'. It also discloses key-type-dependent scoping. It omits result-size or pagination behavior, which is the main remaining gap for a list operation.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and follows with the access caveat and key-type resolution. It is appropriately sized, though the profile_id resolution sentence duplicates the schema description, and the tool-specific authentication parenthetical is slightly 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?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, grouping ('organized by channel and message type'), scoping, and the auth prerequisite — enough to call it correctly. It does not address result volume or pagination, which leaves a minor completeness gap.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the same omitted-fallback semantics. The description's project-scoping sentence largely restates the schema rather than adding format, validation, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb plus resource ('List the custom message templates of one sub-account (project)') and adds a scoping qualifier that separates it from siblings like get_template (single) and get_default_templates ('custom'). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling template tool without opening a schema.

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 clear operating context: the list is project-scoped, profile_id selects the project, and omitted behavior differs by key type (project-bound vs account-wide). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_template or get_default_templates, nor state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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