PersonIQ

Reverse phone lookup

reverse_phone_lookup

Identify the person associated with a phone number. Costs 2 credits, automatically refunded when no data is found.

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": "reverse_phone_lookup"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations: a fixed cost of 2 credits and automatic refund when no data is found, which tells an agent the call is billable but not wasted on misses.

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 with no waste, leading with the core action and following with the cost/refund condition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers purpose, cost, and the no-data refund path. What remains missing is any pointer to the sibling tools an agent should weigh against this one, which matters given the crowded phone/person lookup namespace.

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 the schema already explains phone format, the four rendering modes, and the idempotency key in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the work.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Identify the person associated with a phone number." It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as phone_intelligence, area_code_lookup, or investigate_person, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite 17 siblings including several phone- and person-oriented lookups. The only decision-relevant information is the credit cost, which hints that this should be used deliberately but does not say when.

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?