Skip to main content
Glama
ProofHoldings

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

create_multi_channel_verification

Challenges one phone number across multiple channels at once, issuing a proof token from the first channel the user verifies and canceling the rest.

Instructions

Create a multi-channel phone verification: one phone number challenged over several channels at once (OR / first-wins). The first channel the user completes wins, yields a single proof token, and cancels the losing siblings. Quota is charged per channel.

Agent usage: the response includes a group_id (format vg_) and a channels array — each block carries a deep_link (WhatsApp/Telegram) or an sms_message to present to the user — pass the deep_link to render_auth_link. A block's qr_text is that same link already rendered as QR art, not an alternative address: print it verbatim inside a fenced code block or leave it out. Poll get_multi_channel_verification_status with the group_id to track completion and retrieve the proof token when a channel verifies.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesAsset type — only "phone" is supported
channelsYes1-4 unique channels attempted in parallel (first to complete wins)
identifierYesPhone number in E.164 format
client_metadataNoCustom key-value metadata
external_user_idNoYour application user ID for grouping verifications
proof_expiry_daysNoPer-request proof expiry override in days (1-365)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the first completed channel wins, losing siblings are canceled, a single proof token is yielded, quota is charged per channel, and the response structure includes group_id, channels, deep_link/sms_message, and qr_text. It also discloses the authentication prerequisite and the important fact that start_login does not open this tool.

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 description is long but well-organized: core behavior, agent-facing response handling, and access requirements are separated clearly. It front-loads the essential first-wins semantics and keeps the operational caveats together, though some phrasing could be tightened.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and a multi-step verification flow, the description explains the response shape, how to present each channel to the user, how to interpret qr_text correctly, which status tool to poll, and what authentication setup is needed. Nothing essential to invoking and completing the flow is left to guesswork.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces channel behavior and mentions the response representation, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a multi-channel phone verification') and immediately defines the OR/first-wins semantics that distinguish it from single-channel verification tools. It also references the related follow-up tool get_multi_channel_verification_status, helping the agent place this tool in the broader workflow.

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?

The description gives explicit agent workflow guidance: pass deep_link values to render_auth_link, present sms_message to the user, poll get_multi_channel_verification_status with the group_id, and do not use start_login to open this tool. It does not explicitly name a single-channel alternative such as create_verification as a when-not case, so usage guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ProofHoldings/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server