NEUS MCP

Verify or get next step

proofable_verify_or_guide

Idempotent

Resolve a verification request for the selected Proofable checks. Returns current qualifying proofs when they exist; otherwise returns the single next step. This tool does not create a proof.

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": {
      "verifierIds": "<verifierIds>"
    },
    "name": "proofable_verify_or_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Inputs for the selected verifiers. Used only when a new Proof is needed.
`chain`	No	Optional network hint. Omit when Proofable can infer it from the wallet format.
`options`	No	Optional verification options
`requireAll`	No	Require all listed verifiers. Default false accepts any one.
`verifierIds`	Yes	Verifier IDs from proofable_verifiers_catalog.
`walletAddress`	No	Wallet or DID. Omit when signed in to use the current account.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`action`	No
`proofs`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`success`	No
`eligible`	No
`matchedCount`	No
`hostedVerifyUrl`	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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses the two-branch outcome (return existing qualifying proofs, otherwise a single next step) and explicitly scopes out proof creation, which matters given readOnlyHint=false suggests some state may change. The mild tension between the read-leaning description and readOnlyHint=false is not explained, keeping 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the core action and the negative constraint both front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage on all six parameters, the description carries only the job of explaining the outcome branches and the non-creation constraint, which it does. It stops just short of tying those branches back to specific parameters such as requireAll.

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 the schema already explains verifierIds, data, chain, options, requireAll, and walletAddress. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (e.g., how requireAll interacts with partial proofs), 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 and resource ("resolve a verification request for the selected Proofable checks") and discloses the branch behavior of the result. The closing line "This tool does not create a proof" partially distinguishes it from the verify/verify_submit family, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by "resolve a verification request" and by the exclusion of proof creation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over proofable_verify, proofable_verify_prepare, or proofable_verify_submit, nor any stated prerequisites.

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.