@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_multi_channel_verification

Start a phone verification that challenges one number over WhatsApp, Telegram, and SMS at once; the first channel the user completes returns a single proof token and cancels 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. Exactly one proof is billed, at the winning channel's completion — not one per channel, and nothing at creation.

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.

The user does not see tool results — most clients fold them away, render_auth_link's output included. Before you wait or poll, put what the user must act on into your own reply text: the link itself (not a sentence announcing it), the SMS text and number, or a note to check their inbox.

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

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Asset type — only "phone" is supported
`channels`	Yes	1-4 unique channels attempted in parallel (first to complete wins)
`identifier`	Yes	Phone number in E.164 format
`profile_id`	No	Sub-account whose name and templates the request uses; omitted: the key's sub-account, else the primary
`client_metadata`	No	Your own key-value data, stored with the request
`external_user_id`	No	Your application user ID for grouping verifications
`proof_expiry_days`	No	Per-request proof expiry override in days (1-365)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No
`status`	No	Current status of the verification
`channels`	No
`group_id`	No	Verification group ID (vg_ prefix)
`created_at`	No
`expires_at`	No	When every channel challenge expires
`identifier`	No
`client_metadata`	No
`external_user_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.7.2Nov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / client_metadata / additionalProperties / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedInput schema / properties / client_metadata / description

Previous value: -"Custom key-value metadata"New value: +"Your own key-value data, stored with the request"

addedInput schema / properties / client_metadata / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / profile_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Sub-account whose name and templates the request uses; omitted: the key's sub-account, else the primary",
+  "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{24}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "channels": {},
+    "client_metadata": {},
+    "created_at": {},
+    "expires_at": {
+      "description": "When every channel challenge expires"
+    },
+    "external_user_id": {},
+    "group_id": {
+      "description": "Verification group ID (vg_ prefix)"
+    },
+    "identifier": {},
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Current status of the verification"
+    },
+    "type": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by explaining first-wins cancellation of losing siblings, that exactly one proof is billed at the winning channel's completion and nothing at creation, and the critical client behavior that users never see tool output. That last point changes how the agent must format its reply.

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?

Long but segmented into purpose, agent usage, UX warning, and access, with the core semantics front-loaded. Nearly every sentence carries operational weight, though the access/auth paragraph could be tightened slightly.

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?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with nested objects and an output schema, the definition covers the full lifecycle: creation, response shape, follow-up polling, proof retrieval, billing, and auth setup. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and act on this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns more: it explains that the channels array is raced in parallel with first-completion winning, that the returned channels blocks each carry a deep_link or sms_message, and that qr_text is the same link pre-rendered rather than an alternate address — a distinction the schema cannot convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Create a multi-channel phone verification") and immediately defines the mechanic: one phone number challenged over several channels with OR / first-wins semantics. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling polling tool get_multi_channel_verification_status, which it names.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent what to do after creation (pass deep_link to render_auth_link, poll get_multi_channel_verification_status with group_id) and what not to rely on (start_login does NOT open this tool). Prerequisites — PROOF_API_KEY, server restart — are stated with a concrete remedy.

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

Deploy Server