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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_add_phone_status

Read-only

Poll an in-progress phone-number addition by session ID to check its status until it reaches a terminal state.

Instructions

Check the status of an in-progress phone addition by session ID. Poll until terminal state.

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_idYesAdd-phone session ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
channelYes
session_idYes
verified_atNoPresent once `status` is `verified`
phone_numberNoThe number the person proved; absent until they have

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 phone-add session's state",
+  "properties": {
+    "channel": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "phone_number": {
+      "description": "The number the person proved; absent until they have",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "session_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "description": "Present once `status` is `verified`",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "session_id",
+    "channel",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a status check, and the description adds behavior the annotation cannot express: the operation is asynchronous and expected to be polled, and there is a user-facing side effect if the challenge details never left the tool result. The ACCESS block discloses the PROOF_API_KEY prerequisite and the start_login fallback for opening a session, which is genuinely useful operational context. What is missing is any statement about how long sessions persist or which states count as terminal.

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?

Three short blocks, each with a distinct job: what it does, the user-visible precondition, and the auth requirement. The polling instruction is front-loaded in the opening sentence. The middle paragraph is somewhat lengthy for a caveat, but it is the highest-risk failure mode so it earns the space.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description correctly does not spend words on return values, and the readOnly annotation covers the safety profile. It fills the gaps that structured fields cannot express: async polling, auth setup, and the requirement to surface challenge details to the human. Only the definition of terminal states and any timeout behavior remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% for the single session_id parameter, and the description's phrase 'in-progress phone addition by session ID' adds only the qualifier that the ID comes from an add-phone flow. That is a marginal gain over the schema's own 'Add-phone session ID' text. With the schema fully documented, the baseline of 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of an in-progress phone addition by session ID.' That is enough to separate it from start_add_phone (which initiates), list_phones (which enumerates), and get_add_email_status (which covers email rather than phone). It stops short of naming any of those siblings, so an agent has to infer the boundaries instead of being told them.

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?

'Poll until terminal state' tells the agent how the tool is meant to be driven, which is real usage guidance rather than a restatement of purpose. The paragraph about putting the link, SMS text, or inbox note in the reply before calling is a concrete when-to-use condition tied to user-visible outcomes. It never states an alternative (e.g. a wait/poll helper) or what to do on a non-terminal state other than keep polling.

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