Skip to main content
Glama

YouSpot

by com.youspot

Merge brain objects

merge_graph_objects

Merge two duplicate records in the user's graph into one — person or company only. Every connection moves from the duplicate onto the kept record, fields the kept record lacks are copied over (never overwritten), a merged_from audit marker is appended, and the duplicate is deleted. This is destructive and cannot be undone: ALWAYS show the user both records side by side and get an explicit yes before calling. keep_id survives; merge_id is deleted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keep_idYesThe record that survives (exact object_id).
merge_idYesThe duplicate to fold in and delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by fully disclosing side effects: connections are moved, missing fields are copied without overwriting, an audit marker is appended, and the duplicate is deleted. It explicitly warns that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and requires explicit consent. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently details side effects and the mandatory safety procedure. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive merge tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: scope restrictions, field handling, connection migration, audit marking, deletion, irreversibility, and user consent. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 description adds meaning by explicitly distinguishing keep_id as the survivor and merge_id as the deleted duplicate. This clarifies the parameter roles beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: merging two duplicate records in the user's graph into one, and further narrows scope to person or company records. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_graph_object, connect_graph_objects, and purge_graph_object.

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?

The description clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: for duplicate person or company records in the graph. It also provides a crucial precondition: ALWAYS show both records and get explicit user confirmation before calling. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All YouSpot toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear boundaries even within overlapping domains like LinkedIn (search vs. free-form query vs. profile vs. summary) and graph deletion (soft single, bulk soft, permanent single). Descriptions explicitly cross-reference related tools to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, create_, delete_, etc.). A few noun-phrase exceptions like linkedin_analytics, mutual_connections, similar_objects, and what_needs_attention deviate slightly, but they are still descriptive and do not create confusion.

Tool Count2/5

At 66 tools this is far beyond the 25+ threshold considered too many, even though the server covers many integration domains. Each domain has a coherent subset, but the overall surface is heavy for agents to navigate and would benefit from consolidation or namespacing.

Completeness4/5

The set provides deep read/search coverage across Gmail, Slack, Calendar, LinkedIn, HubSpot, Obsidian, Twitter, and a graph store, with core write operations for calendar, drafts, Slack, and graph objects. Minor gaps exist—notably no calendar delete, no direct Gmail send to third parties (only drafts), and no LinkedIn post/message actions—but these appear deliberate and do not block typical workflows.

Resources