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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

resume_proof

Destructive

Resumes a paused proof by handle or verification ID, revalidates it everywhere, and restores delegation checks for gated publishers on their next status check.

Instructions

Resume a proof paused with pause_proof, by the same handle (ph_ctl_* / ph_dlg_*) or verification ID: it validates again everywhere, and a resumed delegation is honoured again by gated publishers on their next status check. Only the paused row flips back — a proof revoked while paused stays revoked, and a handle whose own row is not the paused one answers not_suspended. The API key needs proofs:write, plus delegations:write for a ph_dlg_*.

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": "resume_proof"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo`suspended` after a suspend, `active` after an unsuspend
proof_idNoPublic proof handle (`ph_ctl_<32 hex>`)
suspended_atNoWhen the suspension began; null after an unsuspend
status_list_uriNoThe Token Status List where this change is published

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say the call is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true); the description adds substantial context beyond that: validation is re-run everywhere, a resumed delegation is honoured by gated publishers on their next status check, only the paused row flips, a proof revoked while paused stays revoked, and the specific not_suspended response. It also discloses required API key scopes (proofs:write, plus delegations:write for ph_dlg_*), which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dashed clauses each carry real information (validation scope, revocation invariant, error code, auth scopes). The second sentence is dense with semicolons and could be split for readability, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with an output schema already present, the description covers preconditions, side effects on delegations, invariants around revoked proofs, the error shape, and auth/account requirements including the access-vs-start_login distinction. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented, but the description adds meaning the schema only gestures at: the ph_ctl_* vs ph_dlg_* handle distinction and the consequence that a delegation handle requires an extra scope. That goes beyond restating the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resume a proof paused with pause_proof') and immediately names the sibling tool that creates the state being undone, so an agent can distinguish this from validate_proof or pause_proof without opening a schema.

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 clear precondition (the proof must have been paused via pause_proof) and explains the failure case for a handle whose row is not the paused one (not_suspended). It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this to re-validate a live proof' exclusion, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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