Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search

Read-only

Prefix-anchored global account search across six resource buckets (verification_requests, verifications, hitl, confirmations, authorizations, api_keys). Case-sensitive prefix match over indexed plaintext fields only; recipient identifiers are masked. Results are scoped to the authenticated account.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesPrefix-anchored search query (minimum 3 characters)
typeNoNarrow the search to a single result bucket
limitNoMax results per bucket (default 10, max 25)
environmentNoScope results to test or production data (default: production)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
totalNo

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

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: case-sensitive prefix matching, plaintext-indexed fields only, masked recipient identifiers, and results scoped to the authenticated account. The ACCESS paragraph is especially valuable, telling the agent authentication is required and that start_login will not unlock the tool, which prevents a failed retry loop.

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 capability sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful constraint detail, followed by a short auth block. Both paragraphs earn their place, though the ACCESS note is written more like a UI instruction than tool semantics and could be tightened.

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 and full parameter documentation, the description covers what structured fields cannot: matching semantics, masking, account scoping, and the auth prerequisite. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are grouped per bucket or how they are ordered across the six buckets.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by qualifying what 'q' actually matches — case-sensitive prefix over indexed plaintext fields, with recipient identifiers masked — which the schema's 'Prefix-anchored search query' alone does not convey. It adds less for 'type' and 'environment,' whose enums are already self-documenting.

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 scope: 'Prefix-anchored global account search across six resource buckets,' and enumerates the buckets. It distinguishes itself from the single-resource get_*/list_* siblings only implicitly via 'global,' without naming a concrete alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'global account search across six resource buckets' implies use when the resource type is unknown or you're working from a prefix rather than an ID, and the 'type' param implies narrowing. But the description never explicitly states when to prefer search over list_verifications, list_hitls, etc., leaving the routing decision 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