Proof Holdings

get_session

Read-only

Get a session by ID. Returns the session status, verification details, and proof token if verified.

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_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Session ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Session id
`proof`	No	Proof token after successful verification
`status`	No
`channel`	No	How the person proves the number: `telegram` or `whatsapp` (the bot reads the number from their account), or `sms` (they text a short code from the number to one of ours).
`created_at`	No
`verified_at`	No	Once `verified`
`phone_number`	No	The proven number (once `verified`)
`verification_id`	No	The verification record created on completion (once `verified`)

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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "How the person proves the number: `telegram` or `whatsapp` (the bot reads the number from their account), or `sms` (they text a short code from the number to one of ours)."
+    },
+    "created_at": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Session id"
+    },
+    "phone_number": {
+      "description": "The proven number (once `verified`)"
+    },
+    "proof": {
+      "description": "Proof token after successful verification"
+    },
+    "status": {},
+    "verification_id": {
+      "description": "The verification record created on completion (once `verified`)"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "description": "Once `verified`"
+    }
+  },
+  "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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the authentication prerequisite, the mid-flow re-authentication step, and the misdirection that start_login does not enable access. It does not discuss behavior for missing or expired session IDs, which keeps it at a 4.

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 tight sections: the capability is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access prerequisite is isolated where an agent will notice it before invoking. No redundancy or padding.

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 already documents the return shape, so the description does not need to explain it. Combined with the auth note, an agent has almost everything needed; only edge-case behavior (invalid or expired ID) is absent, which is minor for a one-parameter getter.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description's "by ID" adds only a restatement of the same idea and no format, source, or lookup hints, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Get a session by ID") and specifies what is returned: status, verification details, and the proof token if verified. It is clearly distinct from the sibling create_session, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from wait_for_session or list_auth_sessions, which an agent may also consider.

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?

The ACCESS block provides clear context: a Proof account and client authentication are required, and it explicitly rules out start_login as a way to open this tool. It stops short of telling the agent when to call this versus wait_for_session (for polling) or get_verification, so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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.