Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_template

Read-only

Retrieve the message template a Proof project sends for a given channel and message type, returning the custom template if set or the default otherwise.

Instructions

Get the template a sub-account (project) sends for a channel and message type: its custom template if set (scope "project"), otherwise the default (scope "default"). The response names the project in profile_id.

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, yet the description adds real value: the fallback behavior (custom if set, otherwise default), the scope labels returned, that the response names the project in profile_id, and a concrete access prerequisite including the explicit warning that start_login does NOT unlock this tool.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in a single dense sentence, and the separate ACCESS paragraph is clearly demarcated. Slightly verbose but every element (scope, response field, auth prerequisite) 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses what the response contains (the resolving project in profile_id) and how to gain access, which is the main open question for this read tool. Only the routing against its three template-read siblings is left unstated.

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% and the schema already describes profile_id's fallback-to-default behavior and the channel enum, so the description is largely reinforcing existing text. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not add new syntax or format detail about message_type beyond the schema's examples.

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 ('Get the template') scoped to a sub-account, channel and message type, and clarifies the resolution order (custom 'project' scope vs 'default'). It implies but does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (get_default_templates, list_templates), so it stops short of a 5.

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 by the resolution semantics – you call it when you want the effective template that would actually be sent – but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against get_default_templates or list_templates. The ACCESS block explains prerequisites, 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