Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_circle

Destructive

Update a Circle's name or owner name while leaving omitted fields unchanged; owner name controls how bots refer to the owner in that Circle. Requires a Proof account.

Instructions

Update a Circle's name and/or owner name. Omitted fields are left unchanged; the profile/identity binding is create-only.

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
idYesCircle ID
nameNoNew name for the Circle
owner_nameNoHow this Circle's members know its owner ("Dad", "Giorgi"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_name
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "How this Circle's members know its owner (\"Dad\", \"Giorgi\"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it."
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds beyond that by disclosing PATCH semantics ("Omitted fields are left unchanged") and the create-only nature of the profile/identity binding. The auth prerequisite (Proof account / PROOF_API_KEY) is behavioral context the annotations do not carry. It does not explain what makes the call destructive or how owner_name clearing interacts with member naming.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the mutation constraint follows immediately; the access block is set off on its own line and is directly actionable. Slightly verbose in the access paragraph ("restart this server, then call this tool again"), but no sentence is wasteful.

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 and only three well-documented parameters, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is mutable, partial-update semantics, and the authentication requirement. The only minor gap is that it does not state whether the updated Circle is returned or how to observe the change.

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 id, name, and owner_name are already documented in the schema, including the owner_name clearing semantics. The description's mapping ("name and/or owner name") and the omitted-fields-unchanged note add optionality meaning, but per-parameter syntax detail is left to the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 scoped precisely: "Update a Circle's name and/or owner name." It further disambiguates from the create path by noting the profile/identity binding is create-only, so an agent knows this tool cannot rebind identity. It stops short of naming sibling tools (create_circle, delete_circle) explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally distinguished.

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 real workflow context: it needs a Proof account, tells the agent to set PROOF_API_KEY and restart, and warns that start_login does NOT open this tool — steering the agent away from a wrong access route. It does not contrast against sibling mutation tools such as create_circle or add_circle_member, so 'when to use this vs others' is only partially covered.

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