Skip to main content
Glama

verify_2fa_magic_link

Complete a 2FA challenge using a magic link token (received via email). No code submission needed — the token itself is the proof.

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "verify_2fa_magic_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesMagic link token from the verification email

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
action_typeYesThe action the session was started for: one of `TwoFAActionType` for sessions started through this API; admin-console sessions carry internal values.
verified_atNo
already_verifiedNoPresent (true) when the session had already been verified, by its code or another open of the link; no grant is stored by this call and the grant fields are absent
grant_expires_atNoWhen the grant this step-up stored stops being accepted
grant_single_useNoWhether the grant is spent by the first act it allows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "description": "The step-up is complete",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "action_type": {
      +      "description": "The action the session was started for: one of `TwoFAActionType` for sessions started through this API; admin-console sessions carry internal values.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "already_verified": {
      +      "description": "Present (true) when the session had already been verified, by its code or another open of the link; no grant is stored by this call and the grant fields are absent",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "grant_expires_at": {
      +      "description": "When the grant this step-up stored stops being accepted",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "grant_single_use": {
      +      "description": "Whether the grant is spent by the first act it allows",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "verified_at": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "status",
      +    "action_type"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond that — an account requirement, an authentication/session flow, and the fact that a prior start_login call is what exposes this tool. It does not cover token expiry or failure behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the access/auth note as a clearly separated second block. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 one required param, an output schema present, and the auth prerequisite spelled out, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. Only the failure modes (expired/reused token) are unaddressed, which is a minor omission for this complexity level.

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% and the single token parameter is already documented as 'Magic link token from the verification email'. The description's restatement of the same fact plus the 'token is the proof' framing adds marginal value only, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Complete a 2FA challenge using a magic link token'. The clause 'No code submission needed — the token itself is the proof' differentiates it by mechanism from code-based siblings like verify_2fa and submit_verification_code, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

States the precondition (token received via email) and the authentication path (authenticate client, or start_login then call again). It gives clear context for use but stops short of an explicit 'use verify_2fa instead if you have a numeric code' exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.