Skip to main content
Glama

noticed

by so.noticed.mcp

add_to_list

Idempotent

Put a person on a list. Idempotent, and it also confirms them if noticed had merely suggested them. Identify the list by list_id or list_name, and the person by person_id (from search_people / resolve_person).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idNoThe list's id (from list_lists / create_list). Pass this OR list_name.
list_nameNoThe list's name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR list_id.
person_idYesThe person's id (from search_people / resolve_person / get_person).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether noticed completed the operation.
dataNoThe operation result when ok is true.
errorNoA human-readable error when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "added": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "list_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "person_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "list_id",
+        "person_id",
+        "added"
+      ],
+      "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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses idempotency and the confirmation side-effect, which goes beyond the annotations (idempotentHint: true). It adds valuable behavioral details that are not obvious from the tool name or schema. However, it doesn't mention error cases or authorization requirements, but given the annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, this is sufficient.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and the key side-effects (idempotent, confirmation) before parameter selection details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the availability of output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is well-rounded. It covers the core behavior, side-effects, and parameter selection logic. It could mention what happens if the list is not found, but that is a minor gap given the schema and the existence of list_lists for reference. The description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, describing each parameter and its source. The description adds the clarification that list_id and list_name are mutually exclusive alternatives ('Pass this OR list_name'). This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions, which already are detailed. The description doesn't add anything about person_id beyond what the schema says, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Put a person on a list') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from alternatives like remove_from_list and accept_list_suggestion. It also notes the idempotent behavior and the confirmation side-effect, which is a clear differentiator from similarly named tools.

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?

Explicitly says to identify the list by list_id or list_name, and the person by person_id from specific source tools (search_people/resolve_person). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the clear mention of alternatives (e.g., accept_list_suggestion) and the confirmation behavior provides strong usage context. The description implies that if a person is merely suggested, this tool confirms them, which guides the agent on when to use this versus accept_list_suggestion.

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

All noticed 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

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