Proof Holdings

start_user_domain_verification

Start a self-service domain verification session. The user proves ownership of a domain via DNS or HTTP challenge.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "start_user_domain_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name to verify (e.g. example.com)
`channel`	No	Verification channel (default: dns)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`challenge`	Yes	What to publish: a TXT record (`dns`) or a file on the site (`http`)
`expires_at`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes

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",
+  "properties": {
+    "challenge": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "What to publish: a TXT record (`dns`) or a file on the site (`http`)",
+      "properties": {
+        "file_content": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "file_path": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "file_url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "instruction": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "record_name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "record_type": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "record_value": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "instruction"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expires_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "session_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "session_id",
+    "domain",
+    "channel",
+    "status",
+    "expires_at",
+    "challenge"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds worthwhile behavior the annotations don't: the auth prerequisite and the retry-after-login pattern. It omits session lifetime, whether a session can be reused, and what happens to a pending session if abandoned.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the access requirement; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical CLI hint is mildly tooling-specific but legitimately actionable for an agent.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, both parameters are documented, and the auth workflow — the biggest failure mode for this call — is explained. What's missing is differentiation from sibling verification tools and any note on session lifecycle, which an agent deciding between the several domain tools would need.

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%, with both the domain and channel parameters fully described including the enum and default, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the DNS/HTTP choice already present in the schema and adds no format or behavior detail beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Start a self-service domain verification session") and states the mechanism (DNS or HTTP challenge), so the action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like start_domain_verification, verify_domain, or verify_domain_with_credentials, which is a real ambiguity in this crowded namespace.

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 paragraph gives concrete call-context guidance: an account is required, authenticate first, and a session auto-opens this tool so it can be retried after login. That is clear usage context, but there are no exclusions or pointers to the alternative verification tools.

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.