Proof Holdings

test_verify

Auto-complete a verification in test mode (pk_test_* API keys only). Useful for testing flows without real OTP delivery.

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": "test_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	MongoDB ObjectId
`type`	Yes	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.
`status`	Yes
`channel`	Yes	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.
`test_mode`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes
`proof_token`	Yes
`verified_at`	Yes
`proof_expires_at`	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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "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.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "proof_expires_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "proof_token": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "test_mode": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "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.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "type",
+    "channel",
+    "status",
+    "identifier",
+    "verified_at",
+    "proof_token",
+    "proof_expires_at",
+    "test_mode"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the operation only works in test mode, no real OTP is delivered, and an authenticated Proof account is required. It does not describe idempotency or whether the verification is permanently consumed.

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?

The behavioral sentence comes first and the access boilerplate second; both are short and every sentence carries decision-relevant information. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 values need not be explained, and auth plus test-mode constraints are covered. The one gap is where the `id` comes from and what state the verification ends up in after the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, and its schema description ('Verification ID') already covers it at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no further detail about the ID's origin (e.g., from create_verification), which would have earned a 5.

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 ('Auto-complete a verification') plus a scoping qualifier ('in test mode, pk_test_* keys only'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the real verification siblings like submit_verification_code or wait_for_verification. Sibling differentiation is implied by 'test mode' rather than naming an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete usage condition ('useful for testing flows without real OTP delivery') and a hard gate (pk_test_* API keys only), plus the authentication prerequisite. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the non-test verification path, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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.