Proof Holdings

wait_for_chat_id_discovery

Read-only

Poll a chat ID discovery token until the user interacts with the Telegram bot. Uses exponential backoff (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max) with jitter.

Agent usage: Call this after create_chat_id_discovery. Present the discovery response's deep_link with render_auth_link first, then poll with the returned token. Terminal states: "completed" (chat_id discovered — use it when creating a HITL config with a Telegram channel), "expired". While "pending", the user has not yet opened the Telegram link.

The user does not see tool results — most clients fold them away, render_auth_link's output included. Before you wait or poll, put what the user must act on into your own reply text: the link itself (not a sentence announcing it), the SMS text and number, or a note to check their inbox.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Discovery token from create_chat_id_discovery
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum wait time in seconds (default: 50, max: 600). Keep it under your MCP client's request timeout (the SDK default is 60 s) — a longer wait is cut off by the client while the server is still polling. On timeout the tool answers status "pending"; call it again with the same identifier.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	"pending" when the wait ran out before a terminal state; otherwise the resource's own status
`chat_id`	No
`message`	No	On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)
`last_status`	No	On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was
`waited_seconds`	No	On timeout: seconds actually waited
`timeout_seconds`	No	On timeout: the wait budget this call was given

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": {
+    "chat_id": {},
+    "last_status": {
+      "description": "On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "\"pending\" when the wait ran out before a terminal state; otherwise the resource's own status"
+    },
+    "timeout_seconds": {
+      "description": "On timeout: the wait budget this call was given"
+    },
+    "waited_seconds": {
+      "description": "On timeout: seconds actually waited"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the read-only annotation: discloses backoff parameters (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max, with jitter), terminal vs. pending states, retry-after-timeout semantics, the Proof-account auth prerequisite including the /mcp Authenticate path, and the critical warning that clients fold tool results away so the link must be surfaced in the agent's own reply.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then the agent usage block, then the cross-cutting note about users not seeing tool results. Mostly economical, though the parenthetical "(ChatCode /mcp → Authenticate)" and the aside about which states matter add length that a shorter phrasing could carry.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the status vocabulary an agent must branch on, and the auth prerequisite is stated explicitly. For a long-polling tool with client-timeout hazards, everything needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 already documents both `token` and `timeout_seconds` (including the 600s cap and the client-timeout caveat). The description confirms the token's origin and the pending-on-timeout behavior but adds little the schema does not already say, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: poll a chat ID discovery token until the user interacts with the Telegram bot, and names the upstream tool (create_chat_id_discovery) that produces the token. The one real gap is the sibling `poll_chat_id_discovery`, which the description never mentions or distinguishes from this tool despite the near-identical name.

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 explicit call sequencing (create_chat_id_discovery → render_auth_link the deep_link → wait with the token) and enumerates terminal states ("completed", "expired") plus the meaning of "pending". It omits the one decision an agent most needs: when to choose this over the sibling poll_chat_id_discovery.

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.