Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

create_circle

Create a named Circle of trusted contacts to power Proof-Me drills and approvals. Optionally seed initial members so they can later be invited to enroll.

Instructions

Create a Circle — a named group of trusted contacts (the people-primitive powering Proof-Me and Approvals-on-Circle). Optionally seed initial members; each member's declared channels are stored so they can be invited to enroll.

Agent usage: after creating a Circle, add members with add_circle_member (or seed them here), then invite_circle_member to mint the enrollment deep link each contact taps to bind their messenger identity.

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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesHuman-readable name for the Circle
membersNoInitial members (name + optional declared channels)
owner_nameNoHow this Circle's members know its owner ("Dad", "Giorgi"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it.
profile_idNoPublic profile (sub-account) to bind for branded messages — create-only
proof_me_enabledNoEnable Proof-Me drills for this Circle

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_name
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "How this Circle's members know its owner (\"Dad\", \"Giorgi\"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it."
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context the annotations cannot: the access prerequisite (PROOF account, PROOF_API_KEY env var) and the pre-launch/restart requirement. It also explains the invite-enrollment binding flow. It doesn't describe failure modes or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence defines the entity, second the member seeding, third the workflow, fourth the access prerequisite. Slightly verbose in the 'powering Proof-Me and Approvals-on-Circle' parenthetical, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 5-param create tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow sequencing, and the tricky auth/bootstrap requirement. A minor gap is that it doesn't state what the response returns (the created Circle id), but that is a small omission.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including nested member fields. The description adds conceptual framing ('each member's declared channels are stored so they can be invited to enroll') but no syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Create) and resource (Circle) and immediately defines what a Circle is — 'a named group of trusted contacts' — plus its role ('people-primitive powering Proof-Me and Approvals-on-Circle'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like update_circle, list_circles, and add_circle_member.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides an explicit agent workflow: create the Circle, then add members with add_circle_member (or seed them here), then invite_circle_member to mint the enrollment deep link. It names the alternative paths and their ordering, leaving nothing to inference.

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