@proof-holdings/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wait_for_verification

Read-only

Polls a verification until it reaches a final state—verified, failed, expired, revoked, or cancelled—using backoff, and returns pending on timeout so you can continue waiting.

Instructions

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

A multi-channel verification that lost the race is "cancelled" and one whose proof was withdrawn is "revoked"; both are final, so the wait returns rather than polling on.

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 to poll
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum 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

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	"pending" when the wait ran out before a terminal state; otherwise the resource's own status
`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.
`message`	No	On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)
`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
`last_status`	No	On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was
`verified_at`	No
`max_attempts`	No
`waited_seconds`	No	On timeout: seconds actually waited
`timeout_seconds`	No	On timeout: the wait budget this call was given
`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"
+    },
+    "last_status": {
+      "description": "On timeout: the last non-terminal status observed, or null when none was"
+    },
+    "max_attempts": {},
+    "message": {
+      "description": "On timeout: what to do next (call the tool again with the same identifier)"
+    },
+    "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"
+    },
+    "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": {},
+    "waited_seconds": {
+      "description": "On timeout: seconds actually waited"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true: it discloses the backoff curve (2s initial, 1.5x, 30s max) with jitter, the timeout contract (returns status "pending", re-call with the same id), and the access prerequisite (PROOF_API_KEY plus server restart, and that start_login does not enable it). The UX warning about the link needing to appear in reply text rather than only in a tool result is a genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint.

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 core behavior and the polling mechanics, then conditions and prerequisites. The middle paragraph on cancelled vs revoked is earned because it explains why the wait returns, though the access note about start_login reads slightly like a tangent.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the description covers timing, terminal states, timeout recovery, and auth prerequisites. The remaining gap is relational: it never says how this differs from the other wait_* and get_* verification siblings in the same family.

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 schema already documents the id and the full timeout_seconds range, default, and client-timeout caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 ("Poll a verification until it reaches a terminal state") and enumerates the five terminal states, which is far more precise than the name alone. It stops short of naming which sibling it replaces (get_verification, get_multi_channel_verification_status, wait_for_request), so the boundary with those tools is only implied.

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 concrete precondition for use ("Before calling this for a challenge you created, make sure your reply text already shows the user what to act on") and explains why the wait returns early on cancelled/revoked rather than continuing. It does not state when to prefer this over a one-shot status call such as get_verification, so the choice between polling and waiting is left to the agent.

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

Deploy Server