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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_sub_account_page_proofs

Destructive

Updates which verified proofs appear on a named sub-account, including visibility, privacy masking, display order, and labels.

Instructions

Update which verified assets (proofs) are displayed on one named sub-account. Controls visibility, privacy masking, ordering, and labels. For the primary sub-account in a signed-in session, update_public_page_proofs does the same.

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": {
      "profile_id": "<profile_id>",
      "proofs": "<proofs>"
    },
    "name": "update_sub_account_page_proofs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofsYesProofs to display on profile
profile_idYesProfile ID
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by spelling out the authentication requirement and the start_login dead end. What it does not disclose is whether the supplied proofs array replaces the entire existing set (potentially removing currently displayed proofs) or merges into it, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and controlled fields first, the sibling routing second, the access block last. Every sentence earns its place, including the negative clarification about start_login, though the ACCESS block could be condensed slightly without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the three parameters. For a destructive mutation the definition is nearly complete, with the remaining gap being replacement-vs-merge semantics and whether the named sub-account must be one the caller owns.

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%, including per-field descriptions and the proof_order enum's ordering semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only a loose mapping of concepts ('visibility, privacy masking, ordering, and labels') and contributes nothing about profile_id, the 50-item cap, or how omitted proof_order behaves, leaving it at the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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?

Specific verb plus resource plus scope: 'Update which verified assets (proofs) are displayed on one named sub-account,' followed by the dimensions it controls (visibility, privacy masking, ordering, labels). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_public_page_proofs, which handles the primary sub-account in a signed-in session.

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 names the alternative (update_public_page_proofs) and the exact condition that selects it (primary sub-account in a signed-in session). It also states prerequisites up front: a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY set and the server restarted, and warns that start_login does not unlock this tool, pre-empting a likely wrong path.

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