Proof Holdings

get_user_domain_verification_status

Read-only

Get the current status of a domain verification session, including challenge details.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), or sign in with start_login — a session opens this tool — then call this tool again.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_domain_verification_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes	Domain verification session ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`challenge`	No	What is still to be published, while the session is not verified (no `instruction`, unlike the start)
`created_at`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`verified_at`	No	Present once `status` is `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": {},
+  "description": "A self-service domain verification session's state",
+  "properties": {
+    "challenge": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "What is still to be published, while the session is not verified (no `instruction`, unlike the start)",
+      "properties": {
+        "file_content": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "file_url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "record_name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "record_type": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "record_value": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "created_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "session_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "description": "Present once `status` is `verified`",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "session_id",
+    "domain",
+    "channel",
+    "status",
+    "created_at"
+  ],
+  "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 is consistent with a 'get' tool, so the safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds genuine beyond-schema context: an authentication gate that will fail the call until a Proof session exists, plus the fact that challenge details come back. It does not mention rate limits or whether an expired session errors uniquely, but the auth prerequisite is the key behavioral fact.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the auth instructions are separated into a labeled ACCESS block rather than buried in prose. Slightly wordy with the redundant 'then call this tool again', but nothing is wasted.

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-value details need not be described, and annotations plus a fully documented single parameter cover most structure. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation within a very crowded domain-verification tool family, which would matter for correct tool selection.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains session_id. The description only repeats that it is a domain verification session ID and adds no format, provenance, or sourcing hint (e.g., where the session ID comes from — start_user_domain_verification?) beyond the vague 'a session opens this tool'.

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: gets the current status of a domain verification session, and notes it includes challenge details. That is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as check_user_domain_verification, check_domain_verification, or verify_domain, leaving the agent to guess which one reads status versus performs verification.

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 block gives a real prerequisite (needs a Proof account, authenticate via /mcp or start_login, then retry). However there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over the many domain-verification siblings, and the parenthetical 'a session opens this tool' is ambiguous about sequencing.

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.