Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

set_primary_email

Destructive

Set an email address as the primary email for the account.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "set_primary_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEmail record ID to set as primary

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description does not explain the consequence that matters most here — that promoting a new primary email presumably demotes or replaces the existing one. What it does add beyond the annotations is the authentication/session prerequisite, which is real value. Net: some added context, but the destructive effect itself is undisclosed.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded and short; the ACCESS block is a separate, clearly demarcated prerequisite note rather than padding in the main sentence. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but every part carries information an agent needs before calling.

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?

With one param, full schema coverage, an output schema and annotations, the definition is broadly adequate. The gap is behavioral: it never states the effect on the previously primary email, which is the main thing an agent would want to know before invoking a destructive toggle.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Email record ID to set as primary'. The description adds no format guidance and slightly blurs the line by saying 'email address' while the schema expects an ID, so it does not clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set an email address as the primary email for the account.' The name and verb pair clearly distinguish it from set_primary_phone and set_primary_profile without needing the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 ACCESS block gives prerequisite guidance (needs a Proof account, use /mcp auth or start_login, then retry), which is genuinely useful for invocation. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as remove_email or starting an add-email flow, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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