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

@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official
by ProofHoldings
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

wait_for_session

Read-only

Polls a verification session with exponential backoff until it reaches a terminal state (verified, failed, or expired), returning pending on timeout so you can retry.

Instructions

Poll a session until it reaches a terminal state (verified, failed, or expired). Uses exponential backoff (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max) with jitter.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSession ID to poll
timeout_secondsNoMaximum wait time in seconds (default: 50, max: 300). Keep it under your MCP client's request timeout (the SDK default is 60 s) — a longer wait is cut off by the client while the server is still polling. On timeout the tool answers status "pending"; call it again with the same identifier.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoSession id
proofNoProof token after successful verification
statusNo"pending" when the wait ran out before a terminal state; otherwise the resource's own status
channelNoHow the person proves the number: `telegram` or `whatsapp` (the bot reads the number from their account), or `sms` (they text a short code from the number to one of ours).
messageNoOn timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)
created_atNo
last_statusNoOn timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was
verified_atNoOnce `verified`
phone_numberNoThe proven number (once `verified`)
waited_secondsNoOn timeout: seconds actually waited
timeout_secondsNoOn timeout: the wait budget this call was given
verification_idNoThe verification record created on completion (once `verified`)

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": {
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "How the person proves the number: `telegram` or `whatsapp` (the bot reads the number from their account), or `sms` (they text a short code from the number to one of ours)."
+    },
+    "created_at": {},
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Session id"
+    },
+    "last_status": {
+      "description": "On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)"
+    },
+    "phone_number": {
+      "description": "The proven number (once `verified`)"
+    },
+    "proof": {
+      "description": "Proof token after successful verification"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "\"pending\" when the wait ran out before a terminal state; otherwise the resource's own status"
+    },
+    "timeout_seconds": {
+      "description": "On timeout: the wait budget this call was given"
+    },
+    "verification_id": {
+      "description": "The verification record created on completion (once `verified`)"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "description": "Once `verified`"
+    },
+    "waited_seconds": {
+      "description": "On timeout: seconds actually waited"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that while adding real behavior: exponential backoff (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max) with jitter, and the timeout contract where the tool returns status 'pending' and must be re-called with the same identifier. The UX caveat about links appearing only in a tool result is a non-obvious behavioral trap that structured fields cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the function and its terminal states, then polling mechanics, then the reply-text prerequisite. Three short blocks with no filler; the user-facing-reply paragraph is slightly digressive but earns its place by preventing an unusable result.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the one return case that matters operationally (timeout yields 'pending'). Prerequisites, blocking duration bounds, and retry instructions are all present for a two-parameter polling tool.

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%, and the timeout semantics (default 50, max 300, client timeout interaction, re-call on pending) are already written in the schema property description rather than in the tool description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Poll a session') and enumerates the terminal states (verified, failed, expired), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It never names the non-blocking sibling get_session, so an agent must infer the blocking-vs-single-check distinction rather than being told it.

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 concrete when-to-use context: call it after creating a challenge, and only after the user-facing reply already contains the actionable link/text. The access note ('needs a Proof account... start_login does NOT open this tool') pre-empts a likely wrong path. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use get_session if you do not want to block'.

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