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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

update_approval_channel

Destructive

Change an approval channel's name, delivery channels, or timeout so human approval requests reach the right contacts within the correct response window.

Instructions

Update an approval channel. Can change name, channels, or timeout.

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_approval_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesApproval channel ID
nameNoNew name (null to clear)
channelsNoUpdated channels
timeout_secondsNoUpdated timeout in seconds (60–86400)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMongoDB ObjectId
nameNo
statusYesStatus of a HITL configuration
keypairYesEncryption keypair metadata (null if not configured)
user_idYesOwner user ID (useful for SDK encryption AAD)
channelsYes
circle_idNoBacking Circle for a circle-backed Approvals config (null for channel-list configs)
created_atYes
profile_idNo
updated_atYes
environmentYes
timeout_secondsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the baseline bar is lower; the description earns credit for disclosing the auth prerequisite and the server-restart wrinkle. It does not explain what is actually destroyed — notably whether supplying 'channels' replaces the entire existing channel set (the schema enforces minItems 1, implying wholesale replacement) — nor whether changes are reversible.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and the access note is a clearly separated block; nothing is padded. The access paragraph is slightly verbose for what it conveys but is genuinely actionable information.

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 a full output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the four parameters are comprehensively specified in the schema. Combined with the auth note, the definition is nearly complete; the missing piece is the replace-vs-merge behavior of the channels array.

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%, with every property documented down to ranges, patterns and null-to-clear semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates the three field groups, adding no format or interaction detail beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update an approval channel") and enumerates the mutable surface: name, channels, timeout. That is enough to separate it from create_approval_channel, archive_approval_channel and get_approval_channel by intent, though it never names those siblings itself.

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?

There is a concrete precondition (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server, start_login won't help), which is useful routing information. However, there is no guidance on when to update versus archive/recreate a channel, or on any conditions that would make this the wrong call.

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