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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

start_domain_verification

Starts B2B domain verification by creating a verification record and returns DNS or HTTP file instructions the customer must complete to prove domain control.

Instructions

Start a B2B domain verification. Creates a verification record and returns DNS/HTTP instructions for the customer to complete.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "start_domain_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to verify (e.g. example.com)
customer_idNoCustomer identifier for B2B tracking
verification_methodNoVerification method (default: manual_dns)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoMongoDB ObjectId
domainNo
statusNo
providerNo
http_fileNo
dns_recordNo
verification_methodNo

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": {
+    "dns_record": {},
+    "domain": {},
+    "http_file": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "MongoDB ObjectId"
+    },
+    "provider": {},
+    "status": {},
+    "verification_method": {}
+  },
+  "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 say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that a record is created and that the caller should hand DNS/HTTP instructions to the customer, which is genuine behavioral context. The access/auth disclosure (Proof account plus API key restart) is exactly the kind of non-obvious gating the annotations cannot express. It still omits whether a verification can be re-started or what happens to an existing record.

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 blocks, purpose first and access constraint second, with no redundant wording. The all-caps ACCESS line is a little blunt but front-loads the obstruction an agent would otherwise hit.

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 no explanation, and the 3-parameter schema is fully described, so the description only needs purpose plus prerequisites — both supplied. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the large family of sibling verification tools, which matters here given the crowding.

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 every parameter including the verification_method enum is documented in the schema. The description's mention of "DNS/HTTP instructions" hints at what verification_method controls but adds no format or default detail beyond the structured fields, 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 ("Start a B2B domain verification") and adds the concrete side effect: creates a verification record and returns DNS/HTTP instructions. That is a clear purpose, but with siblings like start_domain_email_verification, start_user_domain_verification, and verify_domain, the description never explicitly says how it differs beyond the loose "B2B" qualifier.

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?

Gives a real precondition (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY and restart the server) and usefully rules out one path ("start_login does NOT open this tool"). However, it offers no when-to-use routing against the many overlapping verification tools, so an agent must still guess between this and create_verification or start_user_domain_verification.

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