Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@proof-holdings/mcp-server

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

cancel_user_request

Destructive

Cancel a pending verification request you created; only the original creator can perform the cancellation.

Instructions

Cancel a pending verification request. Only the creator can cancel.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, or sign in with start_login — a session opens this tool — then call this tool again.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVerification request ID to cancel

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Generic success response",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known; the description adds real context on top — creator-only authorization, pending-only eligibility, and the API-key/login prerequisite. It stops short of saying whether a cancelled request can be revived or re-created, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

Two short blocks, action first, access second; nothing is padded. The phrasing 'a session opens this tool' is slightly awkward but the instruction sequence (set key or start_login, then retry) is still readable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the auth flow plus eligibility rules are covered. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against cancel_verification_request, which an agent must resolve before calling this 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Verification request ID to cancel'. The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the schema does all the work — the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Cancel a pending verification request') plus an authorization scope ('Only the creator can cancel'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling cancel_verification_request, leaving the agent to guess which cancel tool applies.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions for use: the request must be pending and the caller must be its creator. The ACCESS paragraph further explains how to become authenticated before retrying. What is missing is any guidance on when to choose this over cancel_verification_request, the obvious alternative in the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools