Proof Holdings

render_template

Read-only

Render the template a sub-account sends — its custom template, otherwise the default — with provided variables. Returns the fully rendered message content.

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "message_type": "<message_type>"
    },
    "name": "render_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`channel`	Yes	Message channel
`variables`	No	Variables to substitute into the template
`profile_id`	No	The sub-account to act on; omitted → your key's sub-account, or the primary sub-account for an account-wide key
`message_type`	Yes	Message type

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rendered`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / profile_id / description

Previous value: -"The sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key"New value: +"The sub-account to act on; omitted → your key's sub-account, or the primary sub-account for an account-wide key"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "rendered": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / variables / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

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"
+}

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a render/compute operation, and the description goes beyond the annotation by explaining template resolution and confirming the return is fully rendered content. The ACCESS paragraph adds substantive context annotations cannot express: the tool is gated behind a Proof account and the standard login flow does not unlock it. What is not disclosed is failure behavior — what happens when no template exists for the channel/message_type combination.

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 first sentence front-loads both the action and the resolution rule with no filler, and the return-value claim is tucked in efficiently. The ACCESS block is boilerplate but earns its length by preventing a dead-end call to start_login.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return format needs no explanation, and the auth path is covered. The gap is that this is a template-selection tool whose two required parameters — channel and especially the undescribed message_type — determine which template is chosen, and neither the description nor schema enumerates valid message types or states the no-template case.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a little by tying profile_id's selection behavior to which template gets resolved, which the schema's generic "The sub-account to act on" does not convey. However, message_type is required and documented only as "Message type" in both places, and the description never says which types exist or how they map to templates — the most consequential unresolved parameter.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ("Render the template") and, unusually, discloses resolution order: the sub-account's custom template first, falling back to the default. That fallback rule is genuinely clarifying. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the obvious sibling preview_template, so an agent still has to guess which of the two rendering entry points to pick.

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 is only implied — you infer you should call this when you need actual rendered message content rather than a template definition. Nothing states when to prefer this over preview_template, get_template, or the default-template listing tools, and no prerequisites beyond the auth note are given. The ACCESS block does add a real operational constraint (you must authenticate; start_login will not unlock it).

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.