Proof Holdings

check_domain_credentials

Read-only

Check if stored DNS credentials have access to a domain. Use before triggering verification to confirm the credentials work.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), or sign in with start_login — a session opens this tool — then call this tool again.

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": "check_domain_credentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Domain ID to check credentials for

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`suggestion`	No	Sent when no credential can reach the domain.
`has_credentials`	Yes	Whether the account holds any valid DNS credential. When false, only `accessible_credentials` (empty), `detected_provider` and `suggestion` are sent.
`detected_provider`	Yes
`registrar_provider`	No
`accessible_credentials`	Yes
`has_accessible_credential`	No
`has_registrar_credentials`	No
`can_try_ownership_verification`	No	A registrar credential can confirm ownership while the zone is served elsewhere.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Which of the account's DNS credentials can reach a domain",
+  "properties": {
+    "accessible_credentials": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {
+          "error": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "has_access": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "is_registrar": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "provider": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "provider",
+          "name",
+          "has_access"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "can_try_ownership_verification": {
+      "description": "A registrar credential can confirm ownership while the zone is served elsewhere.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "detected_provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "has_accessible_credential": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "has_credentials": {
+      "description": "Whether the account holds any valid DNS credential. When false, only `accessible_credentials` (empty), `detected_provider` and `suggestion` are sent.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "has_registrar_credentials": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "registrar_provider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "suggestion": {
+      "description": "Sent when no credential can reach the domain.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "has_credentials",
+    "accessible_credentials",
+    "detected_provider"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the tool requires a Proof account, the client must be authenticated, and start_login opens the session needed to retry. That auth precondition is the main failure mode and is disclosed explicitly.

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 operational constraint follows in a labelled ACCESS block, so an agent can skim and still get the point. The ACCESS paragraph is somewhat repetitive ("Authenticate this client" and "call this tool again"), but it is not padding given how auth-blocked tools fail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 single parameter is fully documented. The two things that could cause a failed call — account requirements and unauthenticated sessions — are both addressed, leaving nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage ("Domain ID to check credentials for"), the schema already does the work. The description adds no further semantics about the id — no format, no note on whether it accepts a name versus an ID — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it checks whether stored DNS credentials can access a given domain, which is clearly a pre-flight capability probe rather than an actual verification. It does not, however, disambiguate against close siblings such as verify_domain_with_credentials or check_domain_verification, which an agent in a 130-tool surface would likely confuse it with.

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?

"Use before triggering verification to confirm the credentials work" states a clear when-to-use condition and names the downstream action it precedes. It stops short of stating what to do when the check fails (e.g., re-run connect_dns_provider or create_dns_credential), so the negative path is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Proof Holdings tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.