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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_multi_channel_verification_status

Read-only

Retrieve the aggregate status of a multi-channel verification group by group_id, including per-channel states, the winning channel, and the proof token once verification completes.

Instructions

Get the status of a multi-channel verification group by its group_id. Returns the aggregate status (pending/verified/expired), the winning_channel once one completes, per-channel statuses, and the proof token (with expires_at) when the group is verified.

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, then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesMulti-channel verification group ID (format vg_<hex>)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
proofNo
statusNoGroup-level status: verified as soon as any channel completes
channelsNoPer-channel statuses without per-channel error detail
group_idNo
winning_channelNoChannel that completed the verification (null while pending)

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": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "channels": {
+      "description": "Per-channel statuses without per-channel error detail"
+    },
+    "group_id": {},
+    "proof": {},
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Group-level status: verified as soon as any channel completes"
+    },
+    "winning_channel": {
+      "description": "Channel that completed the verification (null while pending)"
+    }
+  },
+  "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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the auth/credential gate, an explicit negative disclosure that start_login does not unlock the tool, and a UX constraint about surfacing the link/SMS outside the tool result. Nothing here contradicts the read-only annotation.

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 the purpose and return shape, then the pre-call UX caveat and the access note; each sentence adds information. The access paragraph is slightly tangential to invocation and could be trimmed, keeping it just below top marks.

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, return values need not be enumerated, yet the description does so anyway and still covers the auth gate and a display obligation an agent would otherwise miss. Coverage is strong for a one-parameter read tool; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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% and the single group_id already documents the vg_<hex> format, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only restates 'by its group_id' without adding format, validation, or lookup-failure meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get the status of a multi-channel verification group by its group_id') plus the exact returned fields (aggregate status, winning_channel, per-channel statuses, proof token). It is clearly not a create/list/mutate tool, though it never names the sibling it is distinguished from, such as wait_for_verification or get_proof_status.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('Before calling this for a challenge you created, make sure your reply text already shows the user what to act on') and an access prerequisite (PROOF_API_KEY, restart, start_login does NOT open this tool). It stops short of stating when to poll this versus blocking on wait_for_verification, so tool-selection routing is implied rather than explicit.

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