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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_proof_status

Read-only

Retrieves the status of a proof using its public handle or verification ID, returning whether it is active, suspended, expired, or revoked.

Instructions

Get the status of a proof by its public handle (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) or a verification ID. Returns whether the proof is active, suspended, expired, or revoked — a live proof reads "active".

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
idYesPublic proof handle (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) or verification ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoCurrent status of the proof — `active` is a live proof, `suspended` the reversible pause
is_validNo
proof_idNoPublic proof handle (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`), or a verification id for a legacy proof
expires_atNo
is_expiredNo
is_revokedNo
revoked_atNo
suspended_atNoWhen the current suspension began (null unless status is `suspended`)
revoked_reasonNo

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": {
+    "expires_at": {},
+    "is_expired": {},
+    "is_revoked": {},
+    "is_valid": {},
+    "proof_id": {
+      "description": "Public proof handle (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`), or a verification id for a legacy proof"
+    },
+    "revoked_at": {},
+    "revoked_reason": {},
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Current status of the proof — `active` is a live proof, `suspended` the reversible pause"
+    },
+    "suspended_at": {
+      "description": "When the current suspension began (null unless status is `suspended`)"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description does real work: it discloses the authentication prerequisite and explicitly warns that start_login does not grant access, which is a non-obvious failure mode. It also lists the state vocabulary the caller should expect back. It does not cover error behavior for malformed or unknown IDs, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: capability plus returned states first, then access prerequisites. The access paragraph is slightly verbose but carries non-obvious information, so little is wasted.

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 return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus the access note cover the safety and prerequisite picture for a one-parameter read tool. The only gap is behavior on invalid or unknown identifiers, which an agent might reasonably want to know.

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 is fully documented in the schema, so the description mostly restates the accepted handle formats and verification-ID option. That restatement adds mild emphasis but no syntax, format, or resolution-order details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the status of a proof) and enumerates the possible states (active, suspended, expired, revoked), plus the accepted identifier forms (ph_ctl_*/ph_dlg_* handles or verification IDs). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near siblings like validate_proof, get_verification, or get_proof_token, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the identifier formats and the note that start_login does not unlock this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over validate_proof, get_verification, or get_proof_token. The stated precondition (PROOF_API_KEY must be set) is genuinely useful, though it is a setup note rather than a when-to-use rule.

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