NEUS MCP

Check proofs

proofable_proofs_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Does this wallet already have the required proofs? Returns pass or fail, not records. Reading proof bodies needs a signed-in session, which is what unlocks proofable_proofs_get; signed-out callers get this check and can sign in to go further. Omit the wallet when signed in.

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": {
      "verifiers": "<verifiers>"
    },
    "name": "proofable_proofs_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gateId`	No	Optional hosted gate or listing id. Signed-in owners still get eligible + matchedCount only.
`handle`	No	Optional handle filter for handle-based verifiers.
`wallet`	No	Wallet or DID to verify. Omit when signed in to use the current account.
`minCount`	No	Minimum number of matching proofs. Default 1.
`namespace`	No	Optional namespace filter for handle checks.
`verifiers`	Yes	Verifier IDs from proofable_verifiers_catalog.
`requireAll`	No	Require all listed verifiers. Default false accepts any one.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`success`	No
`eligible`	No
`satisfied`	No
`matchedCount`	No
`unknownVerifiers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / status / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / status / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```
AddedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the auth model (signed-out access, signed-in unlock) and the result shape ('pass or fail, not records'), which is meaningful behavioral context. It could go further on what happens with gateId scoping, but the annotations and output schema already carry the safety and return-format burden.

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 purpose and the pass/fail result constraint are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information. The middle sentence about sessions and proofable_proofs_get is a bit convoluted, but nothing is filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: the question it answers, the pass/fail result shape, and the auth gating. A minor gap is that 'pass or fail' does not align precisely with the schema note that signed-in owners get 'eligible + matchedCount', leaving the exact response shape slightly ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including 'Omit when signed in to use the current account.' The description's only added parameter guidance is the wallet-omission rule, which largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description states a concrete question the tool answers ('Does this wallet already have the required proofs?') and explicitly limits the output to pass/fail rather than records. It also distinguishes itself from sibling proofable_proofs_get by contrast (that one reads proof bodies). The framing is a question rather than a verb+resource phrase, which slightly weakens the top score.

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 explicit routing guidance: signed-out callers should use this check, and reading actual proof bodies requires a signed-in session via proofable_proofs_get. It also notes 'Omit the wallet when signed in.' However, it does not mention other nearby verification siblings (proofable_verify, proofable_verify_or_guide, proofable_verifiers_catalog) that an agent might confuse with this one.

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

All NEUS MCP 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.