Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_template

Destructive

Create or replace a project's custom template for a chosen channel and message type, overriding the default for that sub-account only.

Instructions

Create or update a sub-account's (project's) custom template for a channel and message type, replacing the default for that project only. Name the brand with {{business_name}}: a template spelling out a project's own name is refused (template_hardcoded_name).

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
bodyYesTemplate body text with variable placeholders
channelYesMessage channel
subjectNoEmail subject line (email channel only)
profile_idNoThe sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key
button_textNoButton text (email channel only)
message_typeYesMessage type (e.g. verification_request, login_request)
button_url_templateNoButton URL template with placeholders

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / profile_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The sub-account (project) to act on; omitted → your key's project, or the primary project for an account-wide key",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real behavior on top: the write replaces the *default* for that project only (scoping the blast radius), and a hardcoded project name is refused with the specific error code template_hardcoded_name. Auth setup requirements are also spelled out, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and scope come first, followed by the naming rule and then the access block, so the critical routing information is front-loaded. The access paragraph is slightly long for a single prerequisite but each sentence carries 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive scope, the auth prerequisite and a known validation failure. It does not mention whether subject/button_text become required for the email channel or what the call returns, but those are modest gaps given the annotation coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by prescribing the {{business_name}} placeholder convention for the body, a template-authoring rule that is not encoded anywhere in the parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create/update a custom template) plus the exact scope: a sub-account's template for one channel and message type, replacing the default for that project only. That scope statement cleanly separates it from list_templates, get_template, get_default_templates and delete_template in the sibling set.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite (needs a Proof account; set PROOF_API_KEY and restart) and an explicit exclusion (start_login does NOT open this tool). It stops short of routing between create vs. update semantics or pointing at get_default_templates as the inspection counterpart, so it is clear context without full alternative mapping.

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