Proof Holdings

verify_email_otp

Submit the OTP code to verify an email addition. Completes the add-email flow if the code is correct.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "verify_email_otp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	OTP code received via email
`session_id`	Yes	Add-email session ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`verified_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": {},
+  "description": "The address is now on the account",
+  "properties": {
+    "email": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "email",
+    "verified_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement and the retry pattern after authentication, plus the conditional success behavior ('if the code is correct'). It does not mention failed-attempt limits or what an incorrect code does to the pending session, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The core action and outcome are front-loaded in the first sentence; the ACCESS block is a separate, clearly delineated paragraph. Slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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 exists, so return values need not be described. Auth prerequisites, session provenance, and the success condition are all covered. The one remaining gap is what happens on an invalid code or expired session, which an agent might reasonably want before calling.

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 parameters documented ('OTP code received via email', 'Add-email session ID'). The description reinforces that the code is the emailed OTP and that the session comes from opening the flow, but adds no format, length, or expiration semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit the OTP code to verify an email addition') and adds the outcome ('Completes the add-email flow if the code is correct'). It implies the relationship to the add-email flow but never names start_add_email or resend_email_otp as the sibling that precedes/accompanies it, leaving some differentiation work to the agent.

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?

'Completes the add-email flow if the code is correct' establishes that this is the terminal step once a code exists. The ACCESS paragraph gives explicit preconditions and a fallback path (authenticate, or use start_login, then retry). It stops short of explicitly naming start_add_email/resend_email_otp as the source of the code, so guidance is clear but not fully enumerated.

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.