Dayze — Life Context

Resolve Contact

resolve_person

Read-only

Resolve a nickname or surface name to a Dayze Contacts row via person_aliases → exact name → slug → unique substring. Returns avatar_url, photo_count, has_photos, and photos[{url,is_primary}] preview; use get_person_photos for full gallery. With financial_details:read, net_worth_assessment has the same sourced fields as the Contacts card; context-only evidence carries no personal number. Notes omitted unless include_notes=true (redacted). person.lists names the contact lists they are on. Prefer this before money or relationship tools when the agent only has a nickname. Advertised name resolve_person is stable; tools/call also accepts resolve_contact. ($0.05; API key required)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Nickname or display name to resolve
`query`	No	Alias for name
`include_notes`	No	Include redacted notes (default false)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No
`person`	No
`account`	No	The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
`aliases`	No
`resolved`	No
`candidates`	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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"
+}

AddedAug 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, and the description layers on genuinely useful context: permission scope (financial_details:read), redaction behavior for notes, cost ($0.05), API key requirement, and the accepted alias resolve_contact. This is rich disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose and resolution strategy, and each clause carries information. However it is dense and overstuffed with parentheticals, and enumerating return fields (avatar_url, photo_count, has_photos, photos[...]) is largely redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations already present, the description adds everything an agent needs: auth scope, cost, redaction default, alias name, and the routing to get_person_photos. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only the redaction nuance for include_notes ('omitted unless include_notes=true (redacted)') and says nothing about the 'query' alias parameter, so it does not meaningfully exceed 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 ('Resolve a nickname or surface name to a Dayze Contacts row') and even discloses the resolution order (person_aliases → exact name → slug → unique substring). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_person_photos as the full-gallery alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing: 'Prefer this before money or relationship tools when the agent only has a nickname' and 'use get_person_photos for full gallery'. It gives both the when-to-use condition and the alternative tool for the adjacent need.

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

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.