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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_my_proof

Read-only

Fetch a single verified asset by ID to view its type, value, status, and verification timestamps. Requires a Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY configured.

Instructions

Get a single verified asset by ID. Returns details including type, value, status, and verification timestamps.

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_my_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAsset ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMongoDB ObjectId
typeYesType of asset being verified. Not yet available — no channel of theirs can be completed, so a create or start answers 400 `channel_not_available`: social, wallet, account.
statusYesStatus of a verified asset
channelYesHow the asset was verified: a verification channel, or `otp` / `magic_link` for an email address confirmed from the dashboard
metadataNoChannel-specific details recorded at verification
proof_idNoPublic handle of the proof backing this asset (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`), or null when the asset predates the proof registry. This is the `control_proof` value `POST /api/v1/delegations` takes.
has_proofNoWhether a proof token is stored for this asset. Sent by the point read (`GET /me/assets/{id}`) only.
created_atYes
identifierYes
proof_tokenNoThe stored signed proof token. Returned by the point read (`GET /me/assets/{id}`) to a JWT owner session ONLY — an API-key caller and the list response carry `has_proof` alone.
verified_atNo
proof_statusNoRegistry status of that proof. Only an `active` proof can anchor a delegation.
proof_expires_atYesWhen the proof backing this asset expires

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that with an auth precondition and a restart requirement, which is genuinely actionable behavior an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in one tight sentence, followed by a separately blocked ACCESS section that is easy to scan. The auth paragraph is slightly boilerplate-heavy but carries real operational value.

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 does not need to enumerate return fields, and the one required parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains — access setup and the start_login exclusion — is supplied, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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 parameter, `id`, with 100% schema description coverage ('Asset ID'). The description's 'by ID' restates the schema rather than adding format, provenance, or lookup-failure semantics, so 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 description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single verified asset by ID', and states that details include type, value, status and verification timestamps. The singular 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_my_proofs, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite and an explicit exclusion: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and notably 'start_login does NOT open this tool', which prevents a plausible wrong turn. It stops short of pointing at list_my_proofs for enumeration, so guidance is strong on access but thinner on tool selection.

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