Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

resend_verification

Resend a verification message (email channel only). Generates and sends a new code.

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": "resend_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVerification ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
successNo
expires_atNo

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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "expires_at": {},
+    "message": {},
+    "success": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description does not need to carry the full mutation warning. It adds useful behavioral context: email channel only, generation of a new code, and the Proof-account authentication requirement. It does not mention whether prior codes are invalidated or whether rate limits apply.

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 the first sentence, followed by the access requirement. The extra authentication sentence is relevant, though 'start_login does NOT open this tool' is phrased awkwardly and could be tighter.

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?

The tool is simple, the input schema is fully described, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the basic safety profile. The description adds the important email-channel and authentication constraints. It is close to complete, but could be stronger with explicit sibling routing guidance.

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?

There is only one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already defining 'id' as 'Verification ID'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: it resends a verification message and generates/sends a new code. The '(email channel only)' constraint helps distinguish it from domain-email or OTP resend siblings, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative tools.

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?

The description gives an authentication prerequisite and notes that start_login does not open this tool, which is an important access constraint. However, it does not explain when to use resend_verification instead of siblings such as trigger_verification, resend_email_otp, or create_verification.

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