Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIClaw

by io.apiclaw.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_video_verification_session

Create a real-person verification session

Open verificationUrl in a browser to complete personal consent and verification.

The provider redirects the browser to callbackUrl. A browser callback alone is not proof of verification: query this session to retrieve the trusted result. Verification URLs are sensitive and should only be shared with the person.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "meta": {
    "requestId": "Requestid",
    "timestamp": "Timestamp"
  }
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "success": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "title": "Success",
      "description": "Whether the request was successful",
      "default": true
    },
    "data": {
      "description": "Response data payload"
    },
    "error": {
      "description": "Error details if request failed"
    },
    "meta": {
      "description": "Metadata for API responses.\n\nCredit fields follow the ADR-0003 parallel-fields strategy (Option 3):\n- `credits_remaining` / `credits_consumed` (int): legacy fields, rounded\n  to whole credits, kept for zero-breaking-change to existing SDK clients.\n- `credits_remaining_exact` / `credits_consumed_exact` (float): new\n  precision-aware fields for clients that opt in to decimal credits.\n\nSee ADR-0003 decision 5 and the \u00a78 deprecation timeline.\n\nTODO(2026-11, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +6mo): mark `credits_remaining` /\n`credits_consumed` as `deprecated=True` in their Field() definitions\nand announce in customer changelog.\nTODO(2027-05, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +12mo): remove the legacy int fields via a\nmajor-version bump of the OpenAPI surface.",
      "properties": {
        "requestId": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Requestid",
          "description": "Unique request identifier"
        },
        "timestamp": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Timestamp",
          "description": "Response timestamp in ISO 8601 format"
        },
        "total": {
          "title": "Total",
          "description": "Total number of records"
        },
        "page": {
          "title": "Page",
          "description": "Current page number"
        },
        "pageSize": {
          "title": "Pagesize",
          "description": "Number of records per page"
        },
        "totalPages": {
          "title": "Totalpages",
          "description": "Total number of pages"
        },
        "creditsRemaining": {
          "title": "Creditsremaining",
          "description": "Remaining API credits (rounded to whole credits; see creditsRemainingExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsConsumed": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumed",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request (rounded; see creditsConsumedExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsRemainingExact": {
          "title": "Creditsremainingexact",
          "description": "Remaining API credits, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "creditsConsumedExact": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumedexact",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "tokensUsage": {
          "description": "Provider token-usage block \u2014 populated on terminal video polls only, null on every non-video endpoint. See TokensUsage for its fields."
        }
      },
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "requestId",
        "timestamp"
      ],
      "title": "ResponseMeta"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "meta"
  ],
  "title": "OpenApiResponse[VerificationData]",
  "examples": []
}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          },
          "input": {
            "title": "Input"
          },
          "ctx": {
            "type": "object",
            "title": "Context"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

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": {
      "callbackUrl": "<callbackUrl>"
    },
    "name": "create_video_verification_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callbackUrlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful behavior: the trusted-result model (callback alone is insufficient), the redirect flow, and a sensitivity warning about sharing verification URLs. It omits auth/permission requirements, cost implications, and session lifetime, which keeps it from 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.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The four prose sentences are front-loaded and well written, but they are buried under a large auto-generated dump of 200/422 response schemas, example payloads, and internal ADR-0003 credit-deprecation TODO notes that are irrelevant to calling this tool. Roughly 80% of the text is noise.

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?

The workflow is explained well for a one-parameter tool with no annotations, but the description references a verificationUrl while the embedded response example only shows success/meta, leaving the agent unsure what fields (session id, URL, expiry) actually come back. Combined with the undocumented callbackUrl constraints, it is adequate but incomplete.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain callbackUrl as the redirect target, but says nothing about constraints such as allowlisting, absolute-URL/HTTPS requirements, or query-parameter preservation, so the agent still cannot construct a valid value with confidence.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a real-person verification session'. It clearly contrasts with the read-only sibling get_video_verification_session by implying a create-then-query lifecycle, but it never names that sibling, leaving the agent to infer which tool retrieves the result.

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?

It gives real workflow guidance: open verificationUrl in a browser for consent, expect the provider to redirect to callbackUrl, and do not treat the callback as proof — query the session instead. That is clear context for when and how to use it, though it stops short of explicit preconditions or named alternatives.

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

All APIClaw toolsInspect
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.

Resources