PersonIQ

AI intelligence summary

get_person_intelligence

Source-cited AI summary of public web information matched to a person in an owned report. Costs 2 credits.

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": {
      "searchId": "<searchId>",
      "personId": "<personId>"
    },
    "name": "get_person_intelligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`personId`	Yes	personId of the match to research.
`searchId`	Yes	searchId returned by search_person.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional. Pass the same value when retrying a call that may have already succeeded, and you will not be charged twice.

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the output is source-cited, is drawn from public web data, and consumes 2 credits. It stops short of explaining caching, latency, or whether repeated calls re-bill beyond the idempotency note in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the cost constraint. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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?

With an output schema present and fully documented inputs, the description only needs to convey purpose, prerequisites, and cost, which it does. The one missing piece is routing guidance against sibling research tools, which matters given how many overlapping intelligence tools exist.

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%, including a rich enum explanation for format and the idempotency contract, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the 'owned report' framing and no detail on personId, searchId, or format choice, so 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?

Names a specific resource and its provenance: a source-cited AI summary of public web information matched to a person inside an owned report. An agent can tell this generates research output rather than raw lookup, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with deep_dive_intelligence or investigate_person.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'matched to a person in an owned report' signals the prerequisite that a report and a person match must already exist, and the credit cost hints it should be used deliberately. There is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling research tools or when-not-to-use guidance.

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?