noticed

add_note

Write a NOTE on a person's record — content the USER gave you. Use this whenever they ask you to remember, note, or jot something down about someone ("remember Rita prefers async", "note that Ana is hiring"), or when you're transcribing what they told you. The note is theirs; you're just the keyboard. If YOU worked something out on your own that they never told you, that's a memory — use add_memory. @mention a name in content to link someone in your network. Read them back via get_person (relationship.notes).

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": {
      "person_id": "<person_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "add_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Optional tags.
`content`	Yes	The note, in the user's words. @mention a name in your network to link them.
`person_id`	Yes	The person this note is about.
`occurred_at`	No	The date this note REFERS to, if different from now (ISO timestamp). Omit to anchor to write time. Use when recording a past event, e.g. 'met at conference last week'.
`captured_via`	No	The skill capturing this — pass the active skill's slug (e.g. 'add-person', 'event-debrief') when a skill is driving the write; omit for an ad-hoc note.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether noticed completed the operation.
`data`	No	The operation result when ok is true.
`error`	No	A human-readable error when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "A human-readable error when ok is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether noticed completed the operation.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the note is attributed to the user, @mention syntax in content creates network links, and notes are retrievable through get_person. It does not warn about duplicate notes from repeated calls (consistent with idempotentHint=false) or mention any permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then triggers, then the exclusion, then linking and read-back — a sensible order. Slightly padded by rhetorical phrasing ("The note is theirs; you're just the keyboard"), though that line does convey the authorship constraint.

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 5-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers selection criteria, the sibling exclusion, the linking mechanism and the retrieval path. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so person_id, content, occurred_at, captured_via and tags are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-adjacent content, @mention linking in `content`, duplicates the schema text verbatim, and it says nothing about occurred_at or captured_via. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write a NOTE on a person's record") and immediately qualifies the content as user-supplied. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, add_memory, so an agent can route 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete trigger conditions with quoted example utterances ("remember Rita prefers async", "note that Ana is hiring"), an explicit negative case (self-inferred facts go to add_memory), and the read-back path via get_person (relationship.notes). 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 noticed 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?