Proof Holdings

get_request_by_reference

Read-only

Get a verification request by its reference ID (your unique identifier).

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": {
      "reference_id": "<reference_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_request_by_reference"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reference_id`	Yes	Your unique reference ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	MongoDB ObjectId
`assets`	No
`status`	No	Status of a verification request
`outcome`	No	`relying_party` when the request was created to wait for your outcome; null otherwise. Absent from an API that predates the field.
`progress`	No
`created_at`	No
`expires_at`	No
`partial_ok`	No
`updated_at`	No
`action_type`	No	Type of action for verification request or authorization
`callback_url`	No	The webhook URL set on the request, if any
`completed_at`	No
`redirect_url`	No
`reference_id`	No
`action_context`	No	The action the person is asked to authorize; null when the request carries none
`computed_state`	No	Additive machine-readable effective state: re-derives expiry from expires_at (never trusts the stored status). BOTH `is_expiring_soon` and `next_action` are role-aware — `next_action.role` says which side this envelope was computed for, and the two fields are consistent within it. Present only on authenticated owner/requester and recipient responses; absent on public/third-party surfaces.
`verification_url`	No	URL for the verification flow
`validity_requirement`	No	Required proof freshness as set on the request (e.g. "7d"); null when none was set
`outcome_timeout_seconds`	No	The window set on the request, in seconds; null when it does not wait for an outcome. Absent from an API that predates the field.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 9, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "`relying_party` when the request was created to wait for your outcome; null otherwise. Absent from an API that predates the field."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / outcome_timeout_seconds

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The window set on the request, in seconds; null when it does not wait for an outcome. Absent from an API that predates the field."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "action_context": {
+      "description": "The action the person is asked to authorize; null when the request carries none"
+    },
+    "action_type": {
+      "description": "Type of action for verification request or authorization"
+    },
+    "assets": {},
+    "callback_url": {
+      "description": "The webhook URL set on the request, if any"
+    },
+    "completed_at": {},
+    "computed_state": {
+      "description": "Additive machine-readable effective state: re-derives expiry from expires_at (never trusts the stored status). BOTH `is_expiring_soon` and `next_action` are role-aware — `next_action.role` says which side this envelope was computed for, and the two fields are consistent within it. Present only on authenticated owner/requester and recipient responses; absent on public/third-party surfaces."
+    },
+    "created_at": {},
+    "expires_at": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId"
+    },
+    "partial_ok": {},
+    "progress": {},
+    "redirect_url": {},
+    "reference_id": {},
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Status of a verification request"
+    },
+    "updated_at": {},
+    "validity_requirement": {
+      "description": "Required proof freshness as set on the request (e.g. \"7d\"); null when none was set"
+    },
+    "verification_url": {
+      "description": "URL for the verification flow"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: this requires a Proof account, requires client authentication, and notably that start_login does NOT unlock this tool. That last point corrects a likely agent mistake. It stops short of describing error behavior for an unknown reference, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two compact blocks: purpose first, prerequisites second, with zero filler. The access note is separated clearly and the tool-specific caveat about start_login is placed where an agent will hit it.

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

Completeness3/5

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 needn't be explained, and the auth story is handled. What is missing is the disambiguation from sibling retrieval tools and any statement of what happens when the reference is not found, which matters for a lookup-by-identifier tool.

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% and the single field is already described as "Your unique reference ID", so the schema carries the weight. The description adds only a mild reinforcement ("your unique identifier") that this is a caller-supplied reference rather than a server-side ID; no format or constraint detail is added.

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 a verification request by its reference ID", and clarifies the ID is the caller's own unique identifier. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_verification_request, leaving an agent to guess which retrieval path applies.

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 description covers a prerequisite path (authenticate this client, then call again) and explicitly rules out start_login as a way to enable this tool, which is useful. It offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_verification_request or get_request_proofs, so usage selection is only implied.

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.