PersonIQ

Reveal a persona

reveal_persona

Reveal the full profile for one candidate persona from investigate_person. 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": {
      "investigationId": "<investigationId>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "reveal_persona"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`index`	Yes	Candidate index from investigate_person.
`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.
`investigationId`	Yes	investigationId returned by investigate_person.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds the material missing piece: a stated cost of 2 credits per call. It leaves out whether credits are charged on failure and how the idempotencyKey protects retries (that detail lives only in the schema), so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the action/scope first, the cost second. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the format choices are fully covered in the schema. The description covers the action, source, and price, though it is silent on failure behavior for an out-of-range index given that the call is billed.

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%, with the index, format enum, and idempotencyKey all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no interpretation beyond that, which is expected when the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Reveal the full profile for one candidate persona') and anchors it to the sibling tool that produces the input ('from investigate_person'). An agent can distinguish this from investigate_person and get_person_intelligence without opening either schema.

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 establishes the prerequisite workflow: this is a follow-up to investigate_person, consuming a candidate index. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_person_intelligence or when to skip revealing, so usage is clear but exclusions are absent.

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?