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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

request_hitl_authorization

Sends consent requests to all configured Telegram/WhatsApp channels for a HITL config, requiring user approval before confirmations can be sent.

Instructions

Request authorization for a HITL config. Sends consent requests to all configured channels (Telegram/WhatsApp). Users must approve before confirmations can be sent.

Agent usage: This must be completed before create_confirmation will work for this HITL config. The consent request is DELIVERED to each channel — the response carries no link to show. It returns authorizations — one entry per resolved recipient, each with its channel, recipient, authorization_id and status — plus a message. Read the entries rather than assuming: status: 'pending' means consent was just sent and the user must approve in Telegram/WhatsApp itself, while status: 'active' means that recipient had already authorized and nothing was sent to them. An EMPTY array does not mean everyone is authorized — it means no recipient could be resolved at all (usually a HITL config bound to a missing or inactive circle, or channels whose recipient is blank), so nobody was asked and waiting for an approval would hang forever. Do not relay message on that branch: it reads 'All channels already have active or pending authorizations', which is exactly the wrong conclusion. Read the array. After requesting, you can proceed once the user confirms they have approved.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHITL config ID to request authorization for

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hitl_idYesMongoDB ObjectId
messageYes
authorizationsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Response from requesting authorization consent for HITL channels",
+  "properties": {
+    "authorizations": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "authorization_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "channel": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "recipient": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "channel",
+          "recipient",
+          "authorization_id",
+          "status"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "hitl_id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "hitl_id",
+    "authorizations",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false annotations: it discloses that the consent request is delivered to the channel with no link to show, describes the returned `authorizations` entries and the meaning of each `status`, and warns that an empty array means no recipient was resolved rather than universal authorization. It also documents the auth prerequisite (PROOF_API_KEY, restart required, start_login does not unlock it).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the operational warnings follow in a logical order, with no filler sentences. It is on the long side and the 'Read the array' directive partially restates the preceding empty-array warning, costing some tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an output schema existing, the description supplies the interpretive layer the schema cannot: what each status value implies, why an empty array is not success, and that the accompanying `message` is misleading on that branch. Combined with the auth requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('HITL config ID to request authorization for'). The description adds indirect context by mentioning HITL configs bound to missing or inactive circles, but contributes no new meaning about the `id` argument itself, so the baseline score applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Request authorization for a HITL config') and immediately states the observable behavior (sends consent requests to Telegram/WhatsApp). It also positions the tool relative to a sibling by declaring that it must run before create_confirmation works, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('must be completed before create_confirmation will work') and a clear follow-up ('proceed once the user confirms they have approved'), which is exactly the when-to-use framing an agent needs. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the nearby create_authorization tool, which is the one plausible sibling ambiguity left unresolved.

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