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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

resend_verification

Resend a verification email with a newly generated code when the original message fails to arrive. Requires a Proof account and PROOF_API_KEY configured on the server.

Instructions

Resend a verification message (email channel only). Generates and sends a new code.

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
idYesVerification ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
successNo
expires_atNo

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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "expires_at": {},
+    "message": {},
+    "success": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  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?

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive call. The description adds real behavioral context: a new code is generated and sent, the channel is restricted to email, and an account-level credential (PROOF_API_KEY) must be present before the call will work. It stops short of saying whether previously issued codes are invalidated or whether rate limits apply.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access requirement is separated into its own block. Minor redundancy between "Resend a verification message" and "Generates and sends a new code," but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the action, channel constraint, and the non-obvious auth prerequisite. Only secondary details (prior-code invalidation, error behavior) are absent, which is acceptable given the output schema.

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 the single `id` parameter is already documented as "Verification ID" in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for that id, 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Resend a verification message") with a stated scope restriction ("email channel only") and an explanation of the side effect ("Generates and sends a new code"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as resend_email_otp or trigger_verification, which keeps it 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?

The email-channel-only constraint and the access precondition imply when the tool is callable, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over trigger_verification, create_verification, or resend_email_otp. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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