Proof Holdings

wait_for_verification

Read-only

Poll a verification until it reaches a terminal state (verified, failed, expired, revoked, or cancelled). Uses exponential backoff (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max) with jitter.

A multi-channel verification that lost the race is "cancelled" and one whose proof was withdrawn is "revoked"; both are final, so the wait returns rather than polling on.

Before calling this for a challenge you created, make sure your reply text already shows the user what to act on — the link itself, the SMS text and number, or a note to check their inbox; a link that appeared only in a tool result is one they never saw.

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": "wait_for_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification ID to poll
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum wait time in seconds (default: 50, max: 300). 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
`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	"pending" when the wait ran out before a terminal state; otherwise the resource's own status
`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.
`message`	No	On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)
`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
`last_status`	No	On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was
`verified_at`	No
`max_attempts`	No
`waited_seconds`	No	On timeout: seconds actually waited
`timeout_seconds`	No	On timeout: the wait budget this call was given
`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"
+    },
+    "last_status": {
+      "description": "On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was"
+    },
+    "max_attempts": {},
+    "message": {
+      "description": "On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)"
+    },
+    "proof": {
+      "description": "Proof token after successful verification"
+    },
+    "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"
+    },
+    "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": {},
+    "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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation: discloses the backoff schedule (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max, jitter), explains that "cancelled" and "revoked" are terminal rather than transient, and states that a timeout answers status "pending" rather than erroring. It also flags the auth requirement and the workflow hazard of returning a link the user never saw.

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 and terminal states come first, then the non-obvious semantics, then the precondition, then access. Each paragraph is dense with irreducible content and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a blocking-poll tool: auth gating, timeout/retry contract, terminal vs non-terminal outcomes, and the user-facing precondition. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is appropriately omitted.

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 timeout_seconds description already covers default, max, and the client-timeout rationale, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries this dimension.

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 verification") and defines the stopping condition precisely by enumerating the five terminal states. That implicitly separates it from single-shot readers like get_verification or get_multi_channel_verification_status, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 clear operational context: prerequisites (must already have shown the user the link/SMS/email text before calling), the retry pattern on timeout (call again with the same id), and a note that start_login does not open this tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with get_verification for agents that just want a one-shot status check.

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.