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. If that profile is already in noticed it matches + merges them into one record (a contested match is held for an admin); if it's new, noticed queues it to fetch + enrich, then match. Use to ENRICH a thin contact — not to merge two existing records (that's accept_identity_match / suggest_identity_match).

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description details the behavior in two scenarios: existing profile (matches and merges with admin hold) and new profile (queues to fetch and enrich). This goes beyond the basic readOnly/destructive hints, providing transparency about potential actions and outcomes.

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?

The description is reasonably concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Give noticed' and 'Pass person_id + the url'). It is structured with action, parameters, behavior, and usage. Could be tightened but is not excessively verbose.

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?

The description covers the purpose, usage conditions, expected behavior in different scenarios, and explicitly distinguishes from alternatives. It is comprehensive for the tool's functionality, and the presence of an output schema means return value details are not required in the description.

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?

While the schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters, the tool description reinforces the intended context (contact missing a profile) and reiterates the requirement to provide both. It adds a slight semantic nuance but not significantly beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action (adding a profile via URL) and the target (contact missing a profile). It also clarifies the intended use case (enrich thin contact) and distinguishes from alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for enriching a thin contact) and when not to (for merging existing records, pointing to accept_identity_match / suggest_identity_match). It also references list_profile_gaps context.

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

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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tool set is organized around distinct resources, and the descriptions work hard to separate them, but several close pairs remain easy to confuse: add_memory vs memory_save vs add_note, accept_identity_match vs suggest_identity_match, and dismiss_identity_match vs mark_different_people. An agent will often need to read very subtle signals (who originated the content, pending vs initiating a merge, soft vs durable rejection) to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like create_list, update_person, and delete_view, which is readable and mostly predictable. However, the memory tools break the pattern (memory_save, memory_get, memory_search instead of save_memory/get_memory/search_memory), and a few noun-style names (my_profile, network_summary, account_status) add inconsistency.

Tool Count1/5

At 57 tools, this is an extremely large surface that exceeds the calibration threshold for an extreme mismatch. The scope is broad, but many tools are micro-specialized variations of the same concept, such as four memory-related tools and seven identity-match tools, which makes the count feel inflated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides thorough lifecycle coverage for the core domain: people can be added, updated, searched, and removed; lists, views, actions, and scheduled tasks have create/read/update/delete; and identity matching has accept, dismiss, differentiate, and suggest paths. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct memory/note deletion or intro deletion, but agents can generally complete workflows without hitting dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?