Skip to main content
Glama

create_verification

Create a new identity verification. Initiates a verification flow for an asset identifier (phone number, email, domain, social handle, wallet address, account, or Telegram bot).

Agent usage: pass the asset type, the delivery channel, and the identifier (e.g. type "phone", channel "sms", identifier "+37060000000"; or type "email", channel "email", identifier "user@example.com"). The response carries a challenge object with the instruction for the chosen channel — except a telegram_bot verification made with a LIVE key, which the server completes on the spot and answers with status: verified plus a proof token and no challenge at all; with a pk_test_ key that same call stays pending and does carry a challenge. On the messenger channels it also carries challenge.deep_link — pass THAT to render_auth_link to give the user a clickable link and a QR code. This endpoint returns no qr_text at all. For OTP-based flows (sms/email), the user receives a code — poll get_verification or use wait_for_verification to track completion. For Telegram/WhatsApp, the user clicks the deep link to verify.

The user does not see tool results — most clients fold them away, render_auth_link's output included. Before you wait or poll, put what the user must act on into your own reply text: the link itself (not a sentence announcing it), the SMS text and number, or a note to check their inbox.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), 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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>"
    },
    "name": "create_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesAsset type being verified
channelYesVerification channel (must match the asset type, e.g. sms/whatsapp/telegram for phone)
bot_tokenNoTelegram bot token (required for channel "telegram_bot_token")
identifierYesThe asset identifier to verify (E.164 phone, email address, domain, handle, wallet address, ...)
profile_idNoThe sub-account (24 hex characters) this is for; omitted, the key's own sub-account, else the primary. Its branding and templates are used for every message.
dns_providerNoDNS provider credentials (required for channel "auto")
email_prefixNoMailbox prefix for domain email verification
client_metadataNoCustom key-value metadata
external_user_idNoYour application user ID for grouping verifications
proof_expiry_daysNoPer-request proof expiry override in days (1-365)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoMongoDB ObjectId
typeNoType of asset being verified. Not yet available — no channel of theirs can be completed, so a create or start answers 400 `channel_not_available`: social, wallet, account.
proofNoProof token after successful verification
statusNoCurrent status of the verification
channelNoChannel used for verification. Not yet available — a create or start naming one answers 400 `channel_not_available`: github, google, facebook, x, linkedin, instagram, youtube, tiktok, ethereum, solana, bitcoin, coinbase, kraken.
attemptsNo
challengeNoChallenge details for verification
created_atNo
identifierNoThe identifier being verified; absent for an identifier-free phone verification, whose number is learned only when the person completes it
updated_atNo
verified_atNo
max_attemptsNo
external_user_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / profile_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The sub-account (24 hex characters) this is for; omitted, the key's own sub-account, else the primary. Its branding and templates are used for every message.",
      +  "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "attempts": {},
      +    "challenge": {
      +      "description": "Challenge details for verification"
      +    },
      +    "channel": {
      +      "description": "Channel used for verification. Not yet available — a create or start naming one answers 400 `channel_not_available`: github, google, facebook, x, linkedin, instagram, youtube, tiktok, ethereum, solana, bitcoin, coinbase, kraken."
      +    },
      +    "created_at": {},
      +    "external_user_id": {},
      +    "id": {
      +      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId"
      +    },
      +    "identifier": {
      +      "description": "The identifier being verified; absent for an identifier-free phone verification, whose number is learned only when the person completes it"
      +    },
      +    "max_attempts": {},
      +    "proof": {
      +      "description": "Proof token after successful verification"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "description": "Current status of the verification"
      +    },
      +    "type": {
      +      "description": "Type of asset being verified. Not yet available — no channel of theirs can be completed, so a create or start answers 400 `channel_not_available`: social, wallet, account."
      +    },
      +    "updated_at": {},
      +    "verified_at": {}
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_metadata / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / dns_provider / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: the `challenge` response shape, live-key Telegram bot immediate verification versus test-key pending behavior, `deep_link`, absence of `qr_text`, and the need for Proof authentication. It also warns that users do not see tool results, which is important operational context. No annotation contradiction is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but the length is justified by a complex multi-channel verification tool. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by behavioral exceptions, user-facing caveats, and access requirements; no sentence appears purely redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, rich input schema, existing output schema, and auth requirements, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers required inputs, response exceptions, follow-up actions, authentication, and the crucial fact that tool output is not directly visible to the user.

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 adds concrete examples for the required `type`/`channel`/`identifier` combination and ties Telegram bot behavior to the chosen type and key mode, but it does not explain optional parameters such as `bot_token`, `dns_provider`, `profile_id`, or `email_prefix` beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates an identity verification and initiates a verification flow for a named set of asset identifiers. It also distinguishes the tool from follow-up tools like get_verification, wait_for_verification, and render_auth_link, so an agent can identify its role without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: pass `type`, `channel`, and `identifier`, then poll or wait for OTP flows and use render_auth_link for messenger deep links. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with nearby creation siblings such as create_multi_channel_verification or create_verification_request, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.