Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_proof_status

Read-only

Get the status of a proof by its public handle (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) or a verification ID. Returns whether the proof is active, suspended, expired, or revoked — a live proof reads "active".

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_proof_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPublic proof handle (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) or verification ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoCurrent status of the proof — `active` is a live proof, `suspended` the reversible pause
is_validNo
proof_idNoPublic proof handle (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`), or a verification id for a legacy proof
expires_atNo
is_expiredNo
is_revokedNo
revoked_atNo
suspended_atNoWhen the current suspension began (null unless status is `suspended`)
revoked_reasonNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "expires_at": {},
+    "is_expired": {},
+    "is_revoked": {},
+    "is_valid": {},
+    "proof_id": {
+      "description": "Public proof handle (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`), or a verification id for a legacy proof"
+    },
+    "revoked_at": {},
+    "revoked_reason": {},
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Current status of the proof — `active` is a live proof, `suspended` the reversible pause"
+    },
+    "suspended_at": {
+      "description": "When the current suspension began (null unless status is `suspended`)"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely non-structured context: an account/authentication prerequisite and the fact that start_login does not satisfy it. It also clarifies the semantic edge case that a live proof reads "active", which prevents misreading the status field. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only lookup that is minor.

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?

Two sentences plus a short access note, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The access paragraph is slightly longer than needed but earns its place by preventing a failed authentication path.

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, yet the description still names the status values helpfully. Combined with the auth prerequisite, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only the sibling-routing information is missing.

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 a single required parameter, and the description's handle prefixes (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) duplicate what the schema already says. It adds no format, validation, or lookup-resolution detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the status of a proof") and names the accepted identifier forms, then enumerates the possible states (active, suspended, expired, revoked). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as validate_proof, get_verification, or get_request_proofs, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The access note gives a real precondition — a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated via /mcp, and start_login will not unlock this tool — which prevents a class of failed calls. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over validate_proof or get_verification, and no explicit when-not conditions.

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

All Proof Holdings toolsInspect
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.

Resources