@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_approval_channel

Read-only

Retrieves an approval channel by ID and returns its configuration, including channels, timeout, and status, so you can review how approval requests are routed and managed.

Instructions

Get an approval channel by ID. Returns the config including channels, timeout, and status.

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.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_approval_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Approval channel ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	MongoDB ObjectId
`name`	No
`status`	Yes	Status of a HITL configuration
`keypair`	Yes	Encryption keypair metadata (null if not configured)
`user_id`	Yes	Owner user ID (useful for SDK encryption AAD)
`channels`	Yes
`circle_id`	No	Backing Circle for a circle-backed Approvals config (null for channel-list configs)
`created_at`	Yes
`profile_id`	No
`updated_at`	Yes
`environment`	Yes
`timeout_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.10.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by naming what the response contains (channels, timeout, status) and, importantly, by disclosing an authentication prerequisite and explicitly warning that start_login does not grant access to this tool — a non-obvious behavioral constraint.

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 purpose and return shape are front-loaded in one tight sentence, with the access caveat separated into its own paragraph so it reads as a precondition rather than clutter. The auth paragraph is slightly wordy (restart instructions) but every element is actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still hints at the payload. The auth prerequisite, the one required parameter, and the read-only nature are all resolved; an agent has everything needed to make the 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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description is fully covered ('Approval channel ID'). The prose adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID beyond the phrase 'by ID', so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 (get an approval channel) and qualifies it with 'by ID', which distinguishes the single-fetch shape from the list-style siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as list_approval_channels or get_approval_channel_keys, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

The ID requirement and the access precondition (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY set, server restarted) give real context for when this tool can be called at all. However, there is no guidance on choosing between this and list_approval_channels or get_approval_channel_keys; the caller must infer that from the names.

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

Deploy Server