Proof Holdings

update_template

Destructive

Create or update a sub-account's custom template for a channel and message type, replacing the default for that sub-account only. Name the brand with {{business_name}}: a template spelling out a sub-account's own name is refused (template_hardcoded_name). A template for a channel and message type no message is sent for, or using a variable that message never fills, is still saved, with an entry in warnings (template_not_sent / template_variable_not_filled) saying why it will not be sent as written (an API that predates warnings omits the field).

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

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "message_type": "<message_type>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Template body text with variable placeholders
`channel`	Yes	Message channel
`subject`	No	Email subject line (email channel only)
`profile_id`	No	The sub-account to act on; omitted → your key's sub-account, or the primary sub-account for an account-wide key
`button_text`	No	Button text (email channel only)
`message_type`	Yes	Message type (e.g. verification_request, login_request)
`button_url_template`	No	Button URL template with placeholders

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`success`	No
`template`	No	Message template
`warnings`	No	Why this template would never be sent as written; empty when it would be. Always sent; absent from an API that predates it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / profile_id / description

Previous value: -"The sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key"New value: +"The sub-account to act on; omitted → your key's sub-account, or the primary sub-account for an account-wide key"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "success": {},
+    "template": {
+      "description": "Message template"
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "description": "Why this template would never be sent as written; empty when it would be. Always sent; absent from an API that predates it."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / profile_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description backs that up with concrete detail: it replaces the default for one sub-account only, rejects templates hardcoding a sub-account name (template_hardcoded_name), and still saves but flags unusable templates via `warnings` (template_not_sent / template_variable_not_filled). It also discloses the auth/account requirement and the API-version caveat where `warnings` is absent — none of which is in the annotations.

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 mutation and its scoping are front-loaded, followed by the refusal/warning rules and the access note, so an agent gets the essentials first. The prose is dense and the parenthetical API-version caveat is slightly awkward, but no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be fully described, yet the description still explains the `warnings` field and its error codes, plus the authentication prerequisite. For a 7-param destructive upsert, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by documenting the {{business_name}} placeholder convention and the hardcoded-name rule that governs valid `body` content. It does not cover the remaining params (profile_id inheritance, subject/button fields) beyond what the schema already says.

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 description opens with a specific verb pair and resource — 'Create or update a sub-account's custom template for a channel and message type' — and adds scoping ('replacing the default for that sub-account only') that separates it from default-template reads like get_default_templates. An agent knows exactly what this tool mutates without opening 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains validation conditions (hardcoded name refusal, unsent-channel warnings) which effectively tells the agent when an operation will succeed or produce warnings. However, it never names an alternative tool (preview_template, render_template, delete_template) or states when to choose this versus those, so selection 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 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.