Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@proof-holdings/mcp-server

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_2fa_status

Read-only

Check a 2FA session by ID to see if verification is pending, verified, or expired. Poll after start_2fa to know when to proceed with the protected operation or restart the challenge.

Instructions

Check the status of a 2FA session by session ID. Returns whether the challenge has been completed, is pending, or has expired.

Agent usage: Poll this after calling start_2fa. Check every few seconds. Terminal states: "verified" (proceed with protected operation), "expired" (restart with start_2fa). While "pending", the user has not yet entered their code.

Before calling this for a challenge you created, make sure your reply text already shows the user what to act on — the link itself, the SMS text and number, or a note to check their inbox; a link that appeared only in a tool result is one they never saw.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY and restart this server, or sign in with start_login — a session opens this tool — then call this tool again.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYes2FA session ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
session_idYes
action_typeYesThe action the session was started for: one of `TwoFAActionType` for sessions started through this API; admin-console sessions carry internal values.
verified_atNo
grant_expires_atNoWhen the grant this step-up stored stops being accepted
grant_single_useNoWhether the grant is spent by the first act it allows

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "A 2FA session's state; the grant fields are present once `status` is `verified`",
+  "properties": {
+    "action_type": {
+      "description": "The action the session was started for: one of `TwoFAActionType` for sessions started through this API; admin-console sessions carry internal values.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "grant_expires_at": {
+      "description": "When the grant this step-up stored stops being accepted",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "grant_single_use": {
+      "description": "Whether the grant is spent by the first act it allows",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "session_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "session_id",
+    "status",
+    "action_type"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint; the description adds real behavioral context: the three-state lifecycle, what each terminal state implies for downstream work, and the non-obvious requirement that the challenge link/SMS text be surfaced in the reply text before polling. It does not mention timeouts or rate limits, so it stops short of fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and state enumeration, then a clearly labeled "Agent usage" block and an access/auth note. The access paragraph is somewhat tacked on but is short and operationally relevant; no sentence is pure 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return shape, and it still covers lifecycle semantics, polling cadence, and auth prerequisites. The only meaningful hole is not contrasting itself with wait_for_2fa for agents that prefer a blocking call.

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% and the single parameter (session_id) is already documented. The description only restates "by session ID" and adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

"Check the status of a 2FA session by session ID" states a specific verb and resource, and the next sentence enumerates the exact return states (completed/pending/expired). An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only status check from verify_2fa or wait_for_2fa.

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?

Explicitly says to poll after start_2fa, gives a cadence ("every few seconds"), and maps terminal states to next actions (proceed vs. restart with start_2fa). It omits the polling sibling wait_for_2fa, which is a plausible alternative for the same job.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools