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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

share_request_email

Send a pending verification request link to a recipient by email so they can complete verification.

Instructions

Email the link of a pending verification request to a recipient.

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
emailYesRecipient email address the verification link is sent to

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
successYes
messageIdNoThe email provider's message id; absent in test mode

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.7.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / email
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Recipient email address the verification link is sent to",
+  "format": "email",
+  "pattern": "^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "email"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "The verification link was emailed",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "messageId": {
+      "description": "The email provider's message id; absent in test mode",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden for anything else. It does so for the biggest barrier by spelling out the authentication requirement and the exact remediation path (set PROOF_API_KEY and restart, or call start_login and retry). It omits other behavior such as whether calling it twice re-sends, whether the link expires, or any rate limits.

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 core action is front-loaded in a single tight sentence, and the ACCESS block is a clearly separated prerequisite note. The access instructions are somewhat verbose for content that annotations cannot express, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 not be described, and both parameters are fully documented. Combined with the explicit auth/session prerequisite, the definition covers what an agent needs to attempt the call; only edge behavior on non-pending requests is left unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The prose only loosely mirrors them ('link of a pending verification request' for id, 'recipient' for email) without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Email the link') and a specific resource ('a pending verification request') plus the recipient, so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resend_verification or send_account_email, 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the request must be pending and the intent is to deliver the link to a recipient. The ACCESS paragraph gives real prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, or a session opened by start_login), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the sibling that handles re-sending instead.

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