PersonIQ

Verify an identity match

verify_identity_match

REQUIRES a full name PLUS at least one phone or email — a name on its own cannot be verified against anything, and the call is rejected. Addresses alone do NOT satisfy this. EASIEST PATH: pass searchId + personId from a search_person result and every field is filled from that record for you. Check whether a name, phone, email and address all describe ONE real, consistent person. Cross-referenced against fraud and identity networks — not a background check, and no criminal, credit or employment records are involved. Returns a 0-100 trust score, a verdict, and a separate judgement on EVERY value you submit, so you learn which phone or email belongs to someone else rather than just that something is off. Send every data point you hold: up to 5 phones, 5 emails and 5 addresses cost the SAME 7 credits as one, because the provider bills per call. Charged on any verdict INCLUDING a score of 0 — "these details do not resolve to a known identity" is the answer a fraud check is usually buying. Refunded only if the provider fails to respond at all.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "verify_identity_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No	ZIP code for the street address.
`city`	No	City for the street address.
`name`	No	Full name being verified. Required unless searchId + personId are supplied.
`email`	No	Email address. Supply a phone, an email, or both.
`phone`	No	Phone number. Supply a phone, an email, or both.
`state`	No	Two-letter state code for the street address.
`emails`	No	Up to 5 additional emails. Each is judged separately, at no extra cost.
`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.
`phones`	No	Up to 5 additional phones. Each is judged separately, at no extra cost.
`street`	No	Street address, e.g. 123 Main St.
`personId`	No	personId from search_person. Fills name, phones, emails and addresses for you.
`searchId`	No	searchId from search_person. Pass with personId to verify a resolved subject.
`addresses`	No	Up to 5 additional addresses. Each is judged separately, at no extra cost.
`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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description carries the real burden and does it well — 7-credit cost, charged even on a 0 score, refunded only on provider non-response, and bulk submission at no extra cost. The one gap is that nothing explains retry behavior beyond the schema's idempotencyKey description, and the "no charge twice" guarantee is not restated here.

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?

The hard precondition is front-loaded in the first clause, then cost, then return shape; each sentence adds a fact an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial. Capitalized lead-ins (REQUIRES, EASIEST PATH) make the key constraints scannable despite the density.

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?

For a 14-parameter, billable, open-world verification call, the description covers the requirement, the shortcut path, scope exclusions, pricing semantics, and per-address/per-phone verdict output. An output schema exists, so the brief mention of the trust score and verdict is sufficient rather than redundant.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema declares zero required properties, so the description's statement that name plus phone or email is mandatory fills a genuine hole the schema leaves. It also adds cross-parameter behavior (searchId + personId "fills every field from that record for you") and per-value judging for the array parameters. It stops short of clarifying precedence when both direct fields and searchId/personId are passed.

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?

"Check whether a name, phone, email and address all describe ONE real, consistent person" states a specific verb and a precise resource, and the follow-up "not a background check, and no criminal, credit or employment records" draws a hard boundary against investigator/deep-dive siblings. An agent can tell this apart from investigate_person or get_person_intelligence without opening another schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit preconditions ("REQUIRES a full name PLUS at least one phone or email — a name on its own cannot be verified... the call is rejected") plus an explicitly named preferred path ("pass searchId + personId from a search_person result") and named out-of-scope use cases. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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?