Skip to main content
Glama

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_profile

Destructive

Update a profile by ID. Supports changing display info, email branding (theme, support email), theme, custom links, and verification display settings.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bioNoProfile bio
themeNoProfile theme settings
is_publicNoWhether the profile is publicly visible
avatar_urlNoAvatar (base64 or URL, null to remove)
is_primaryNoSet as primary profile
profile_idYesProfile ID
email_themeNoTheme of this project's emails
is_businessNoWhether this is a business profile
custom_linksNoCustom links (max 20)
display_nameNoDisplay name
business_nameNoBusiness name
support_emailNoSupport email this project's messages show (null to remove)
show_proof_channelsNoShow proof channels on public profile
show_verification_datesNoShow verification dates on public profile

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / email_theme
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Theme of this project's emails",
+  "enum": [
+    "dark",
+    "light"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / support_email
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "not": {}
+        },
+        {
+          "format": "email",
+          "maxLength": 254,
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Support email this project's messages show"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Support email this project's messages show (null to remove)"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds useful auth context ('start_login does NOT open this tool'), but does not explain partial-update semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what 'destructive' means in practice.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and field summary, then a separate access note. It is appropriately sized and avoids repeating schema details, though the field list sentence is slightly list-like.

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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers access and field groupings but omits partial-update behavior, null-removal semantics, and the meaning of omitted parameters. The 100% schema coverage fills param-level gaps, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 all 14 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only groups the updatable areas (display info, email branding, theme, custom links, verification display settings) without adding syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Update) and resource (a profile) with scoping 'by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from update_my_profile. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear from the first sentence.

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 gives an authentication prerequisite ('needs a Proof account... Authenticate... then call this tool again'), but it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_my_profile or set_primary_profile. No when/when-not guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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