Dayze — Life Context

Person Interactions

get_person_interactions

Read-only

Relationship timeline for one CRM person: interactions rows (message/call/meeting/note + extended kinds like visit/gift/stayed_over encoded in summary) plus co-tagged calendar events. Prefer this over dumping people.notes for “when did I last see X?”. Pass person_id or name. Records carry inspect_url (their Dayze page): cite with it, never build a link from an id; a record without one has no page (inspect_note says which). ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter
`from`	No	Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter
`kind`	No	Optional filter: meeting, visit, gift, stayed_over, met, …
`name`	No
`limit`	No	Max rows 1–100, default 40
`person_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`count`	No
`events`	No
`account`	No	The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
`person_id`	No
`truncated`	No
`matched_via`	No
`inspect_note`	No	How to cite: link each record with its inspect_url, never a link built from an id; which record types here have no Dayze page.
`person_inspect_url`	No	The contact's Dayze page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+  "properties": {
+    "display_name": {
+      "description": "Account display name.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "handle": {
+      "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "qa_fixture": {
+      "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "handle",
+    "display_name",
+    "qa_fixture",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / inspect_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How to cite: link each record with its inspect_url, never a link built from an id; which record types here have no Dayze page.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / person_inspect_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The contact's Dayze page.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / from

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / to

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inclusive YYYY-MM-DD filter",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedAug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile, yet the description adds substantial extra context: cost ($0.10), API key requirement, and the inspect_url citation contract including the edge case of records with no page ('inspect_note says which'). This is real behavioral information an agent cannot get from annotations.

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-loads the core purpose and the 'prefer this over' guidance before the citation rules and cost. It is dense and every clause carries information, though the inspect_url/citation sentence is packed tightly enough to risk being skimmed.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be restated, and the description still covers the selectors, the extended kinds, the citation contract, and the cost/auth prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 67%, and the description adds the key ambiguity resolution: person_id or name are interchangeable selectors. It also signals the extended 'kind' vocabulary that the schema only hints at with an ellipsis, adding meaning beyond the raw field list.

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+resource ('Relationship timeline for one CRM person') and precisely enumerates what is returned: interaction rows (with extended kinds encoded in summary) plus co-tagged calendar events. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_interactions and get_events without needing to open any 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?

Explicitly routes usage ('Prefer this over dumping people.notes for "when did I last see X?"') and states the selector requirement ('Pass person_id or name'). It gives a clear scenario without naming the closest sibling tool by name as an alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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

All Dayze — Life Context tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.