Proof Holdings

trigger_verification

Trigger a DNS/HTTP verification check for a pending domain verification.

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": "trigger_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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing a Proof account requirement, the need to authenticate the client, and the non-obvious fact that start_login does not satisfy this tool's auth. It stops short of saying whether repeated triggering creates new attempts or consumes quota, but the auth disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the access prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations, and the auth caveat is placed after the purpose rather than burying it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 explain return values, and the single required parameter is fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is disambiguation within a very large sibling set of overlapping domain-verification tools, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only implies that the id refers to a pending verification and does not say where to obtain it (e.g., from list_verifications or create_verification), which is the one piece of added meaning that would have helped.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Trigger a DNS/HTTP verification check for a pending domain verification.' An agent can tell this initiates a check rather than reading state, but the sibling set contains several near-identical names (verify_domain, check_domain_verification, start_domain_verification, verify_domain_with_credentials) and the description never says how this one differs.

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 phrase 'pending domain verification' implies a precondition (a verification must already exist and be awaiting a check), and the ACCESS note states the account/authentication prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over verify_domain or check_domain_verification, so the agent must infer the routing.

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.