Skip to main content
Glama

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_settings

Destructive

Update account settings: the outbound webhook endpoint with its event subscriptions, and the default proof lifetime. Branding belongs to each sub-account (project): change it with update_profile. Setting the first webhook endpoint creates the signing secret and returns it in this response; the value is returned only when this call created or rotated it, so record it then.

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
webhookNoOutbound webhook configuration. Deliveries carry an HMAC-SHA256 X-Proof-Signature over "<X-Proof-Timestamp>.<body>".
proof_expiry_daysNoDefault proof-token lifetime in days for newly issued proofs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / branding
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "description": "Branding settings to update",
-  "properties": {
-    "business_name": {
-      "description": "Business name displayed in verifications",
-      "maxLength": 100,
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "email_theme": {
-      "description": "Email template theme",
-      "enum": [
-        "dark",
-        "light"
-      ],
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "logo_url": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "anyOf": [
-            {
-              "not": {}
-            },
-            {
-              "format": "uri",
-              "type": "string"
-            }
-          ]
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "description": "HTTPS URL to business logo"
-    },
-    "primary_color": {
-      "description": "Primary brand color (hex, e.g. #FF5733)",
-      "pattern": "^#[0-9A-Fa-f]{6}$",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "support_email": {
-      "description": "Support email shown in verification messages",
-      "format": "email",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag a destructive write, and the description adds behavior beyond that: the signing secret is created on the first webhook set and is returned only when this call created or rotated it, so it must be recorded immediately. It also documents the auth precondition and warns that start_login won't unlock it, all of which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then alternatives, then behavior, then access. Dense but essentially every sentence carries information; the ACCESS paragraph is slightly long but contains a genuinely non-inferable warning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes what the call returns (the signing secret, only on create/rotate). Combined with the access/auth prerequisites and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with nested objects, so the schema already documents url, events, rotate_secret and proof_expiry_days in detail. The description only gestures at them at a high level ('the outbound webhook endpoint with its event subscriptions'), adding no syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (update account settings) and enumerates the exact scope: the outbound webhook endpoint with event subscriptions, plus the default proof lifetime. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly-named update_profile sibling by noting branding belongs to each sub-account.

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?

Names a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it (branding → update_profile), and gives a clear prerequisite ('needs a Proof account… authenticate this client, then call this tool again'), including the non-obvious exclusion that start_login does NOT open this tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_settings for reading settings.

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