Proof Holdings

start_add_email

Start adding a new email address. Sends an OTP code to the email. Returns a session ID to verify with.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "start_add_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email address to add

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`email_sent`	Yes	Whether the code went out; the session is started either way
`expires_at`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`email_error`	No	Why the code did not go out; present only when `email_sent` is false
`instructions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "An email-add session: a code was emailed to the address",
+  "properties": {
+    "channel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "email": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "email_error": {
+      "description": "Why the code did not go out; present only when `email_sent` is false",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "email_sent": {
+      "description": "Whether the code went out; the session is started either way",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "expires_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "instructions": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "session_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "session_id",
+    "email",
+    "channel",
+    "status",
+    "expires_at",
+    "instructions",
+    "email_sent"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / email / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call sends an OTP to the target email and returns a session ID for later verification. It also notes the Proof-account authentication prerequisite. It does not cover rate limits, OTP expiry, or duplicate-email behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the action and side effects, then a short access note. Every sentence contributes needed context; nothing is repeated from the schema beyond the essential flow summary.

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 start/OTP tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effects, return artifact, and authentication prerequisites. The main remaining gap is not naming the exact verification follow-up tool or edge cases, but the agent has enough to invoke and place the call correctly.

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 parameter and the schema fully documents it with type, format, pattern, and description ('Email address to add'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for 100% schema coverage is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific action and resource ('Start adding a new email address') and immediately explains the OTP and session-ID behavior. That makes it distinguishable from verify_email_otp and start_add_phone without needing the schema.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite for use: a Proof account must be authenticated, either via the client auth flow or start_login, after which the tool is retried. It does not enumerate exclusions such as duplicate-email handling or explicitly name verify_email_otp as the follow-up, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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.