@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

by ProofHoldings

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

get_verification

Read-only

Retrieve a verification by ID to confirm its status and channel, and get the proof token when verification succeeds.

Instructions

Get a verification by ID. Returns the full verification object including status, channel, and proof token if 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Verification ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	MongoDB ObjectId
`type`	No	Type 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.
`proof`	No	Proof token after successful verification
`status`	No	Current status of the verification
`channel`	No	Channel used for verification. Not yet available — a create or start naming one answers 400 `channel_not_available`: github, google, facebook, x, linkedin, instagram, youtube, tiktok, ethereum, solana, bitcoin, coinbase, kraken.
`attempts`	No
`challenge`	No	Challenge details for verification
`created_at`	No
`identifier`	No	The identifier being verified; absent for an identifier-free phone verification, whose number is learned only when the person completes it
`updated_at`	No
`verified_at`	No
`max_attempts`	No
`external_user_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.2Nov 6, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "attempts": {},
+    "challenge": {
+      "description": "Challenge details for verification"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "Channel used for verification. Not yet available — a create or start naming one answers 400 `channel_not_available`: github, google, facebook, x, linkedin, instagram, youtube, tiktok, ethereum, solana, bitcoin, coinbase, kraken."
+    },
+    "created_at": {},
+    "external_user_id": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "description": "The identifier being verified; absent for an identifier-free phone verification, whose number is learned only when the person completes it"
+    },
+    "max_attempts": {},
+    "proof": {
+      "description": "Proof token after successful verification"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Current status of the verification"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "Type 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."
+    },
+    "updated_at": {},
+    "verified_at": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes meaningfully beyond that: it discloses the access prerequisite (a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY set, server restart) and explicitly warns that start_login will NOT unlock this tool, which prevents a common failed-auth loop. It stops short of saying anything about error or not-found behavior, so not 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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and return contents before the operational caveats. Every sentence carries information; the only slight inefficiency is that the return-value sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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 needn't enumerate return fields, and the auth prerequisite plus the start_login warning cover the main non-obvious failure mode. The remaining gap is disambiguation within a very large set of similarly named verification tools, which is the highest-risk confusion for an agent here.

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% with a single required 'id' already documented as 'Verification ID', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, prefix, or source information for the ID (e.g. where to obtain it), leaving it at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 a verification by ID') and adds what comes back ('full verification object including status, channel, and proof token if verified'). It does not, however, distinguish this from the crowded set of verification siblings such as get_verification_request, get_multi_channel_verification_status, or get_proof_status, so an agent still has to infer which verification family this covers.

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 through the 'challenge you created' framing and the pre-call reminder to surface the link/SMS text to the user, which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative statement (e.g. poll once vs. use wait_for_verification), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server