Proof Holdings

share_request_email

Email the link of a pending verification request to a recipient.

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>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "share_request_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification request ID
`email`	Yes	Recipient email address the verification link is sent to

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`messageId`	No	The email provider's message id; absent in test mode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / email

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recipient email address the verification link is sent to",
+  "format": "email",
+  "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "email"
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "The verification link was emailed",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "messageId": {
+      "description": "The email provider's message id; absent in test mode",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that a Proof account is required and that authentication can happen through /mcp or start_login. It does not disclose rate limits, whether the request must be pending, or what happens if the email has already been sent.

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 description is two sentences and front-loads the action before the access requirement. The authentication sentence is somewhat detailed but earns its place because auth is a real prerequisite.

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, and both input parameters are fully documented in the schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the auth prerequisite but omits usage alternatives, error behavior, and side-effect details for a tool that sends an external email.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'id' refers to a verification request and 'email' is the recipient, but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: email the link of a pending verification request to a recipient. It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as send_account_email, resend_verification, or resend_domain_email.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only provides authentication guidance, not usage guidance. It does not explain when to use this tool versus send_account_email, resend_verification, or other email-sending siblings. No exclusions or alternative-selection criteria are given.

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.