Skip to main content
Glama

noticed

by so.noticed.mcp

add_to_network

Idempotent

Add someone to your network. Known (e.g. a search_people hit) → tracked; new → created/imported + tracked. Accepts person_id OR free_form:{name,…} + optional tags and relationship_types (how you know them — set it right here at add time, no follow-up update_person needed). Returns canonical person_id. DEDUPE: a new free_form contact that strongly matches someone you already have returns { created:false, potential_duplicates, confirmation_token } instead of creating — track the existing person, or re-call with the confirmation_token only if it's genuinely someone new.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoInitial tags to apply. Prefer an existing tag from your network over coining a near-duplicate (reuse `sf`, don't add `san-francisco`); lowercase, and use the event:/place:/topic: namespaces where they fit.
free_formNoA brand-new contact to create + track. Use when there is no person_id.
person_idNoperson_id of an existing search_people hit to start tracking.
custom_nameNoYour own display name for this person.
confirmation_tokenNoFrom a prior potential_duplicates response — pass it back to create despite the flagged duplicates (only after the user confirms it's a new person).
relationship_typesNoHow you know this person, from the closed set: family, close_friend, friend, coworker, ex_coworker, advisor_investor, customer, vendor, acquaintance. Values outside this set are dropped. Set it here at add time — no follow-up update_person needed.

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: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "confirmation_token": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "created": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "person_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "potential_duplicates": {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "properties": {
+              "company": {
+                "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/potential_duplicates/items/properties/person_id"
+              },
+              "display_name": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "headline": {
+                "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/potential_duplicates/items/properties/person_id"
+              },
+              "id": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "name": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "person_id": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: the dedupe mechanism (returns created:false, potential_duplicates, and confirmation_token instead of creating), the condition to re-call with confirmation_token only for genuinely new people, and that relationship_types outside the closed set are dropped. It also states the return of a canonical person_id. These details are critical for correct invocation and are not evident from annotations alone.

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 dense yet efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, then methodically covers modes, parameters, return value, and dedupe behavior. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, and the structure guides the agent from selection to invocation to edge-case handling.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested object, an output schema, and non-trivial dedupe behavior, the description covers all necessary aspects: input mode selection, parameter relationships, validation rules, return values, and the confirmation flow. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be spelled out, yet the description still highlights the canonical person_id. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial semantic context: it clarifies that person_id and free_form are mutually exclusive (OR), explains the confirmation_token's role in the dedupe flow, and positions relationship_types as settable at add time. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions and directly facilitates correct usage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Add someone to your network.' It then distinguishes two modes — known persons via person_id become tracked, while new contacts are created/imported and tracked. This precisely scopes the tool and differentiates it from siblings like update_person and remove_from_network.

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?

It explicitly states when to use each input mode: use person_id for known search_people hits, free_form for brand-new contacts. It also notes that relationship_types can be set at add time, eliminating a follow-up update_person call. While it doesn't name alternative tools directly, the contextual cues (e.g., 'no follow-up update_person needed') effectively guide selection. A slightly more explicit exclusion of update_person for relationship settings would push this to 5.

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