noticed

add_profile_to_person

Destructive

Give noticed a LinkedIn or GitHub URL for a contact missing a profile (an email-only person from list_profile_gaps). Pass person_id + the url. noticed treats the URL as your assertion: it attaches the profile and starts enriching it, or, if that profile is already on another record in your network, merges the two (reversible by an admin). A profile that conflicts with verified identity evidence is rejected with an error. Use to ENRICH a thin contact — not to merge two existing records (that's accept_identity_match / suggest_identity_match).

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>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "add_profile_to_person"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	A LinkedIn (linkedin.com/in/…) OR GitHub (github.com/…) URL for that person — one or the other.
`person_id`	Yes	persons.id of the contact to attach a profile to (from list_profile_gaps / search_people / get_person).

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": {
+        "merged_person_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "status",
+        "merged_person_id",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false without saying why; the description explains the destructive path, which is that if the URL already belongs to another record in the network, noticed merges the two records, and an admin can reverse that merge. It also documents the failure mode: a profile that conflicts with verified identity evidence is rejected with an error, and the description notes that noticed treats the URL as an assertion by the caller rather than as verified truth.

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 front-loaded with the action and the input, then layers on side effects and exclusions, and every sentence carries information you cannot get from the schema or annotations. The parentheticals are dense but they orient the reader rather than padding the text.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with complete annotations and an output schema, the definition covers the remaining unknowns: what happens on success, the merge side effect, reversibility, and the rejection condition. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it, or 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%: both parameters are documented, including the accepted URL formats and where person_id comes from. The description adds only the semantic framing that the URL is treated as an assertion, not a proof of identity, but it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Give noticed a LinkedIn or GitHub URL for a contact missing a profile') and explicitly states the scope: attaching a profile to a thin contact, not merging two existing records. It names the sibling tools that do the other job (accept_identity_match / suggest_identity_match), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?

The description says explicitly when to use the tool: for a contact that is missing a profile, typically an email-only person surfaced by list_profile_gaps, and it says which parameters to pass. It also gives the exclusion ('not to merge two existing records') and routes the agent to the correct alternatives, which is stronger guidance than most definitions provide.

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?