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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

extend_request

Extends the expiration time of a pending verification request, reactivating it if already expired and setting a new expiry window from 1 to 720 hours.

Instructions

Extend the expiration time of a pending verification request.

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 extend
extends_by_hoursNoHours from now until the request expires, 1–720 (default: 168, i.e. 7 days). An expired request is reactivated.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesStatus of a verification request
messageYes`Verification request extended`, or `Verification request reactivated and extended` for a request that had expired (its `status` is then `pending` or `partial` again)
successYes
expires_atYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.7.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / extends_by_hours
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Hours from now until the request expires, 1–720 (default: 168, i.e. 7 days). An expired request is reactivated.",
+  "maximum": 720,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "The request's new expiry",
+  "properties": {
+    "expires_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "`Verification request extended`, or `Verification request reactivated and extended` for a request that had expired (its `status` is then `pending` or `partial` again)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Status of a verification request",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message",
+    "expires_at",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation, and the description is consistent with that while adding genuine value: the Proof account requirement and how to satisfy it (PROOF_API_KEY or start_login). It stops short of saying whether extension is idempotent, whether it affects proof validity or delivery state, or what happens on repeated calls, which matters for a mutation with only two annotation hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in one clean sentence, but the ACCESS block is nearly as long as the purpose and contains awkward phrasing ('a session opens this tool') plus server-restart instructions. It earns partial credit for being actionable, but it is not tight.

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, the two parameters are fully documented, and the authentication prerequisite is spelled out. The only real gap is behavioral detail about the effect of extending on surrounding request state, which is minor for a straightforward two-parameter mutation.

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%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 1–720 range, the 168-hour default, and the fact that an expired request is reactivated. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Extend the expiration time of a pending verification request.' An agent can tell it apart from cancel_verification_request or get_verification_request by the verb alone. It does not, however, name any sibling alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 only implied: you extend when a pending request needs more time. The description never contrasts this with cancelling the request or creating a new one, which are the realistic alternatives among the many sibling verification tools. The access/reset instructions are prerequisites rather than when-to-use guidance.

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