Proof Holdings

get_proof_token

Read-only

Get the current token of a proof you own, by its public ph_ctl_* handle. After a signing-key rotation this is the re-signed token, which replaces any older copy you hold. Each read is audited. A revoked or expired proof answers proof_not_live; a suspended one is still served. The proof of one of the account's own verified assets (a domain, phone or email verified on the account itself) answers owner_session_required here whatever its status (with a live key; a test key gets not_found): this tool sends the API key, and such a token is read by the signed-in owner in the dashboard. A key bound to a sub-account reads only that sub-account's proofs; another's answers not_found. For a delegation (ph_dlg_*) use get_delegation_token or get_delegation instead.

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_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Public proof handle (ph_ctl_<32 hex>)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	Yes	The proof token as stored now. After a key rotation it is the re-signed token under a newer `kid`: every claim is kept except `iat`, which is the re-signing time, and a token issued before schema 1.2 also gains the `jti` and `proof_id` its registry row records.
`status`	Yes	Live statuses only — a revoked or expired proof answers 410 `proof_not_live` instead
`proof_id`	Yes	Public proof handle (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`)
`expires_at`	Yes
`reissued_at`	Yes	When the token was last re-signed under a newer key; null if it never was

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial context beyond that — reads are audited, key rotation means the returned token supersedes older copies, suspended proofs are still served while revoked ones are not, and sub-account keys are scoped to their own proofs. The access paragraph also explains the authentication prerequisite and that start_login will not unlock this tool, which is non-obvious.

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 description is dense and front-loaded: the core action and scope come first, then error/edge-case behavior, then the access requirement. Every sentence carries information, though the long parenthetical about owner-verified assets is harder to parse than a bulleted structure would be.

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 shape need not be explained. Given the tool's complexity (key rotation, audit logging, scoping rules, multiple error states), the description covers everything an agent needs to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'ph_ctl_<32 hex>', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description still adds meaning by making clear that only ph_ctl_ handles are valid here and that ph_dlg_ handles belong to a different tool, which reduces mis-invocation risk.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current token of a proof you own, by its public ph_ctl_* handle.' It immediately scopes the operation (token retrieval, not status or validation) and distinguishes the resource from delegations by naming get_delegation_token and get_delegation as the ph_dlg_* route.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for ph_ctl_* proofs, use get_delegation_token or get_delegation for ph_dlg_*. It also states outcome conditions (revoked/expired → proof_not_live, suspended → still served, own verified asset → owner_session_required, foreign sub-account → not_found), so an agent can predict and interpret results before calling.

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.