Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

resend_email_otp

Resend the OTP code for an in-progress email addition.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "resend_email_otp"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesAdd-email session ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Generic success response",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description usefully adds the account/authentication requirement and the start_login fallback. However, it says nothing about the side effects an agent would care about: whether resending invalidates the previously issued code, rate limits, or expiry of the session.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single precise sentence, with access prerequisites following. The ACCESS paragraph is somewhat long relative to the operational content but is scannable and every line is actionable.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and declared annotations, the definition covers the state precondition and auth requirements well. The remaining gap is what the agent should do after a successful resend or when the resend is throttled.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already describes it as an 'Add-email session ID' at 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'in-progress email addition' confirms the session's origin but adds no format, sourcing, or lifecycle detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Resend the OTP code') scoped to a particular flow ('an in-progress email addition'), which separates it from resend_verification, resend_domain_email and verify_email_otp. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 — an email-addition session must already be in progress — plus the authentication path needed before the call will work. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., start_add_email to begin the flow, verify_email_otp to submit the code) or saying when a resend is unnecessary.

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