Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_template

Destructive

Deletes a sub-account's custom template for a specified channel and message type, reverting that project to the default template.

Instructions

Delete a sub-account's (project's) custom template, reverting that project to the default template for the channel and message type.

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
channelYesMessage channel
profile_idNoThe sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key
message_typeYesMessage type (e.g. verification_request, login_request)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-readonly, but the description adds value beyond them: the deletion is not permanent disappearance of configuration, it reverts the project to the channel/type default, and it requires a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY configured. It stops short of saying whether the deleted template is recoverable or whether other channel/type templates are unaffected.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and carries the whole purpose and side effect with no waste. The second paragraph is useful but slightly operational in tone (restart instructions) relative to the core semantics.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, resulting state, and access requirements. It omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when no custom template exists, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description ties the parameters to an outcome: channel + message_type define which template is reverted to default, and profile_id is the sub-account/project scope. That adds a small amount of semantic meaning over the schema's field-level text.

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 (delete) and resource (a sub-account's custom template) and goes further by naming the resulting state: the project reverts to the default template for that channel and message type. This distinguishes it cleanly from update_template, get_template, and list_templates without opening any 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool to remove a customization, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to siblings such as update_template. The ACCESS paragraph is a useful prerequisite (account type, PROOF_API_KEY) but addresses setup, not tool selection.

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