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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_public_page_proofs

Destructive

Update which verified proofs appear on the primary sub-account's public page, controlling visibility, masking, and display order. Requires a signed-in Proof account.

Instructions

Update which verified proofs are visible on the public page of the primary sub-account (the one get_current_sub_account reads), including visibility, masking, and display order. Needs a signed-in session. To do the same for a named sub-account, use update_sub_account_page_proofs.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account, signed in: call start_login, show the user its challenge, then wait_for_login, then call this tool again. An API key alone 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": {
      "proofs": "<proofs>"
    },
    "name": "update_public_page_proofs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofsYesArray of proof display configurations (max 50)
proof_orderNoWho orders the shown proofs: `default` (domain, social, Telegram bot, email, phone, wallet, then display_order) or `owner` (display_order alone). Omitted, the profile keeps its current setting.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proof_orderYesWho decided the order of a profile's proofs. `default`: domain, social account, Telegram bot, email, phone, wallet, then each proof's `display_order`. `owner`: the owner's `display_order` alone — send it when the owner reorders. The first shown proof that is not hidden leads the profile's preview card, share tags and badge. Omitted on an update, the profile keeps its current setting.
public_proofsYesThe shown proofs, in the order the public profile shows them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description adds real context on top: session-based auth flow, the fact that credentials alone are insufficient, and the fields being mutated (visibility, masking, display order). What it omits is the destructive consequence itself — whether proofs absent from the array get hidden or dropped, and whether prior settings are recoverable.

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 opening sentence front-loads scope and target, and the alternative is stated immediately after. The access paragraph is slightly long but every element (login steps, retry instruction, API-key caveat) is actionable rather than 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers targeting, auth, and the sibling alternative thoroughly. The remaining hole is destructive semantics for a replace-style proofs array, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 coverage is 100%, with per-field descriptions, enum values, and the max-50 limit all documented in the schema. The description only summarizes the three concerns (visibility, masking, display order) without adding format or interaction details such as what happens to unlisted proofs, so it does not materially exceed the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (which verified proofs are visible on the public page) and pins the target precisely to the primary sub-account 'the one get_current_sub_account reads'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from update_sub_account_page_proofs, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives the alternative and the exact condition that selects it ('to do the same for a named sub-account, use update_sub_account_page_proofs'), plus a concrete prerequisite sequence: start_login, show the challenge, wait_for_login, then retry. It also states a negative condition: an API key alone does not unlock the tool.

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