@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_circle_member_drill

Fire an on-demand cross-channel identity challenge to one enrolled circle member with the scheduled safety-check label, letting account owners practice confirming outside automated daily drills.

Instructions

Fire an on-demand Proof-Me drill against one enrolled member — a real cross-channel identity challenge carrying the scheduled-safety-check label (the account owner practices confirming). Complements the automated daily drill + monthly reinforcement sweeps. On Pay as you go a live key is refused 422 plan_upgrade_required; a test key is not, and its drill reaches the member on Telegram only (400 no_channel when they have no verified Telegram channel).

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Circle ID
`member_id`	Yes	Member ID to drill

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`status`	No
`confirm_channel`	No	Channel the CONFIRM was dispatched on
`single_channel_warning`	No	True when the owner has only one channel, so the CONFIRM ran on the same channel (degraded)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.2Nov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "confirm_channel": {
+      "description": "Channel the CONFIRM was dispatched on"
+    },
+    "id": {},
+    "single_channel_warning": {
+      "description": "True when the owner has only one channel, so the CONFIRM ran on the same channel (degraded)"
+    },
+    "status": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the supplied annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the substantive behavioral traits: an actual challenge is dispatched to a real person, it carries the scheduled-safety-check label, and specific failure modes and their codes are given (422 plan_upgrade_required for live keys on Pay as you go, 400 no_channel when the member lacks a verified Telegram channel). It also explains the test-key asymmetry, which materially changes what an agent should expect. Nothing contradicts 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the 'drill vs automated sweeps' framing, then grouped into error-behavior and access blocks. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational weight; the parenthetical '(the account owner practices confirming)' is the only mildly expendable phrase.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, plan gating, channel precondition, and credential setup (PROOF_API_KEY + restart, plus the explicit note that start_login does not unlock it). The main residual gap is what an agent should do after firing — e.g., whether results are observed via the output schema or polled elsewhere — and any rate-limit or idempotency expectations for repeated drills.

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: the member_id must identify an *enrolled* member, and that member needs a verified Telegram channel (under a test key) or the call fails with 400 no_channel. That constraint is not expressible in the schema's 24-hex-char pattern and directly informs parameter selection.

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 and resource — 'Fire an on-demand Proof-Me drill against one enrolled member' — and immediately characterizes it as 'a real cross-channel identity challenge carrying the scheduled-safety-check label.' It also positions the tool against automated siblings ('Complements the automated daily drill + monthly reinforcement sweeps'), so an agent can separate this on-demand drill from scheduled sweeps without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context for when to reach for this tool: on-demand, single member, versus the automated daily/monthly sweeps. It further gates usage by plan ('On Pay as you go a live key is refused 422 plan_upgrade_required') and by channel availability. It stops short of naming a direct alternative sibling (e.g., create_verification_request or trigger_verification) for the case where this tool is unavailable, so it is slightly under-specified on exclusions.

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

Deploy Server