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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

cancel_verification_request

Destructive

Cancel a pending verification request to stop verification from proceeding. Only requests still pending can be cancelled.

Instructions

Cancel a pending verification request. Only pending requests can be cancelled.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesVerification request ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMongoDB ObjectId
statusYes
messageYes

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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "status",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the state constraint that only pending requests qualify, plus an explicit authentication prerequisite (PROOF_API_KEY + restart) and a note that start_login does not grant access. It stops short of saying whether the cancellation is reversible or what happens to proof data.

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 purpose and its precondition are front-loaded in two tight sentences; the access block follows and is clearly separated. The access note is slightly verbose but earns its place as an operational prerequisite.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the destructive profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: the pending-only precondition and the API-key requirement.

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% with a single 'id' parameter already documented as the verification request ID. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cancel a pending verification request') and adds a scope qualification. An agent can identify the operation immediately, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby cancel_user_request sibling.

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?

Provides one concrete precondition ('Only pending requests can be cancelled'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not name alternatives for non-pending requests or state what the caller should do instead, leaving the routing guidance incomplete.

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