PersonIQ

Phone spam and carrier intelligence

phone_intelligence

Spam risk, carrier, line type, and location for a phone number. 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": {
      "phone": "<phone>"
    },
    "name": "phone_intelligence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`phone`	Yes	Phone number. 10 digits; a leading US 1 is accepted.
`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.
`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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior that annotations lack: the call is billed at 2 credits. It says nothing about retry safety or partial failures, though the schema's idempotencyKey field implies duplicate-charge protection.

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, outputs front-loaded, cost at the end. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, the description need not cover return values or parameters, and the credit cost fills the main behavioral gap. What remains missing is sibling differentiation in a crowded phone/person-intelligence family, which is the highest-risk ambiguity for tool selection here.

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 phone format, the four rendering modes, and the idempotency key are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case for full-coverage schemas.

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 concrete data returned (spam risk, carrier, line type, location) for a specific resource, a phone number, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never distinguishes this from close siblings like reverse_phone_lookup or area_code_lookup, which sound like they act on the same input.

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 guidance on when to call this versus reverse_phone_lookup, area_code_lookup, or deep_dive_intelligence, all of which take phone-adjacent inputs. The only contextual note is the price, which is a cost signal rather than a use-case signal.

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?