lookup

Submit Async Job

vri_submit_job

Submit an ASYNC bulk lookup job for up to 10000 North American phone numbers. Balance is reserved up front and the job runs in the background; check progress with vri_bulk_status. Requires a customer API key (jobs bill the account that owns the key). Live customer keys spend balance. Repeating a call can charge again; reuse a stable request_id with identical arguments for a safe retry. Use max_cost to cap the quote. Use a test key for integration tests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`max_cost`	No	Maximum quoted cost in USD; rejected before lookup if exceeded.
`products`	No	Default ['lrn'].
`request_id`	No	Stable unique ID for this operation. Reuse with identical arguments to retrieve its receipt without another charge.
`phone_numbers`	Yes	US/Canada numbers to process asynchronously (max 10000)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job_id`	No	Use with vri_bulk_status
`status`	No
`reserved`	No	USD balance reserved for the job

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / max_cost

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Maximum quoted cost in USD; rejected before lookup if exceeded.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / phone_numbers / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / products / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stable unique ID for this operation. Reuse with identical arguments to retrieve its receipt without another charge.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only covering the read/write/idempotency profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot: balance is reserved up front, the job runs in the background, a customer API key is required, live keys actually spend balance, and a repeated call can charge again unless a stable request_id is reused. This is exactly the cost/billing disclosure an agent needs before invoking a billable tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The scope statement is front-loaded, followed by cost, auth, retry and testing guidance. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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 no explanation. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering billing, auth, retry and monitoring, an agent has everything required to call this tool correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including max_cost's rejection behavior and request_id's retry semantics. The description's mentions of max_cost and request_id restate that information rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb, resource and scope: 'Submit an ASYNC bulk lookup job for up to 10000 North American phone numbers.' It differentiates from the synchronous sibling by emphasizing ASYNC/background execution and explicitly routes to vri_bulk_status for progress.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: check progress with vri_bulk_status, cap spend with max_cost, use a test key for integration tests, and reuse request_id to avoid double charges. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the synchronous vri_bulk_lookup sibling, so the alternative-selection rule is implied rather than stated.

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

All lookup 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.