PersonIQ

Area code and carrier directory

area_code_lookup

Read-only

Reference data for an area code or NPA-NXX prefix: region, carrier, and line type. Free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "areaCode": "<areaCode>"
    },
    "name": "area_code_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	Rendering of the human-readable text channel. "prose" (default) is a compact summary an agent can reason over; "json" repeats the data verbatim; "report" is a formatted Markdown report to show a person; "html" is a standalone HTML document for saving, printing or PDF. Machine-readable structuredContent is always included either way.
`areaCode`	Yes	Three-digit NANP area code, e.g. "661".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`apiVersion`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes
`balanceNotice`	No
`suggestedNext`	No
`criminalCaveat`	No
`notConsumerReport`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with "Free" (no billing/credit consumption), which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call a lookup or an unlock/paid sibling, but it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or the cost of the format variants.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource before the payload fields, with no wasted clauses. The trailing one-word "Free." fragment is slightly abrupt but carries real decision-relevant information.

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?

Return values need not be spelled out because an output schema exists, and the safety profile is fully covered by annotations. What remains for the description is the subject matter and the cost signal, both of which are present; the only real gap is sibling routing, which is scored under usage guidelines.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description actively muddies parameter semantics: it advertises lookup by "area code or NPA-NXX prefix" while the schema's areaCode parameter is documented as a three-digit NANP area code only. That mismatch could lead an agent to pass a six-digit prefix and fail validation, which is worse than adding nothing.

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?

The description names the resource (area code / NPA-NXX prefix) and enumerates the returned fields (region, carrier, line type), so an agent knows exactly what data it gets. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as reverse_phone_lookup or phone_intelligence, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only usable signal is implicit: reference data is needed when you already hold an area code rather than a full number, which the agent must infer.

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

All PersonIQ 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.

Resources

Need Help?