Proof Holdings

get_verification

Read-only

Get a verification by ID. Returns the full verification object including status, channel, and proof token if verified.

Before calling this for a challenge you created, make sure your reply text already shows the user what to act on — the link itself, the SMS text and number, or a note to check their inbox; a link that appeared only in a tool result is one they never saw.

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_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	MongoDB ObjectId
`type`	No	Type of asset being verified. Not yet available — no channel of theirs can be completed, so a create or start answers 400 `channel_not_available`: social, wallet, account.
`proof`	No	Proof token after successful verification
`status`	No	Current status of the verification
`channel`	No	Channel used for verification. Not yet available — a create or start naming one answers 400 `channel_not_available`: github, google, facebook, x, linkedin, instagram, youtube, tiktok, ethereum, solana, bitcoin, coinbase, kraken.
`attempts`	No
`challenge`	No	Challenge details for verification
`created_at`	No
`identifier`	No	The identifier being verified; absent for an identifier-free phone verification, whose number is learned only when the person completes it
`updated_at`	No
`verified_at`	No
`max_attempts`	No
`external_user_id`	No

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": {
+    "attempts": {},
+    "challenge": {
+      "description": "Challenge details for verification"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "Channel used for verification. Not yet available — a create or start naming one answers 400 `channel_not_available`: github, google, facebook, x, linkedin, instagram, youtube, tiktok, ethereum, solana, bitcoin, coinbase, kraken."
+    },
+    "created_at": {},
+    "external_user_id": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "description": "The identifier being verified; absent for an identifier-free phone verification, whose number is learned only when the person completes it"
+    },
+    "max_attempts": {},
+    "proof": {
+      "description": "Proof token after successful verification"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Current status of the verification"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "Type of asset being verified. Not yet available — no channel of theirs can be completed, so a create or start answers 400 `channel_not_available`: social, wallet, account."
+    },
+    "updated_at": {},
+    "verified_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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds substantive context beyond that: it discloses the authentication prerequisite (Proof account, with a concrete remediation path) and warns that start_login does not satisfy it. The note about links appearing only in tool results is a useful behavioral caution about user-facing effects, though it doesn't cover rate limits or whether repeated polling is expected.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the user-facing precondition, then access requirements. Each block earns its place, though the parenthetical Claude Code UI path is slightly verbose for a general-purpose tool description.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return shape, and it covers the two things structured fields cannot: the auth gate and the pre-call UX obligation. The remaining gap is the absence of guidance relative to sibling polling/listing tools, which matters given how many verification-related siblings exist.

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 coverage ('Verification ID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds nothing about ID format or where to obtain one, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 by ID') and adds what the response contains (status, channel, proof token when verified). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as wait_for_verification, list_verifications, or get_multi_channel_verification_status, so an 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?

There is one genuine usage rule: before calling this for a challenge you created, ensure the reply text already shows the user the link/SMS/inbox note. That is a real precondition, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus polling siblings like wait_for_verification or bulk retrieval via list_verifications.

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.