noticed

get_person

Read-onlyIdempotent

One person's full record: profile, current role, and your relationship context (notes, tags, last interaction, added_at = when they entered your network) by default; pass include:'extras' or 'all' for work history, education, and repos. person_id:'me' for yourself. The contact section carries ALL of their emails, phones, and companies (primary first) — a person can have several of each, so read contact.emails rather than the single top-level email when the user asks for their addresses. The relationship section carries your memory of them: summary (cited), strength ({score, category}), mutuals (shared connections), actions (follow-ups — done flags completion), and memories (saved notes). scope:'team' opens the POOLED TEAM record for a person from a team search_people hit — who on the team knows them + their strength, and full-consent teammates' actions/notes/interactions attributed to each member. Present-tense snapshot — an empty field means not recorded, NOT false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	'own' (default) — your own record. 'team' — the pooled TEAM record for a person from a team search_people hit (who knows them + full-consent teammates' notes/actions/interactions).
`include`	No	'dossier' (default, fast) · 'extras' (work history/education/repos) · 'all'.
`team_id`	No	For scope:'team' — the organizationId (from account_status.teams). Optional when you're in exactly one team; required otherwise.
`person_id`	Yes	The person's id (from search_people), or the literal 'me' for yourself.
`compared_to`	No	Optional second person_id — adds a shared_signals section.

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: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "compared_to": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/person"
+        },
+        "contact": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/person"
+        },
+        "person": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "relationship": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/person"
+        },
+        "scope": {
+          "enum": [
+            "own",
+            "team",
+            "public"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "shared_signals": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/person"
+        },
+        "team": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/person"
+        }
+      },
+      "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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the present-tense snapshot semantics (empty field means not recorded, NOT false), the structure of contact and relationship sections, and the pooling behavior for team scope. It also notes that added_at means when they entered your network. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits or auth, but those are not critical for a read tool.

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 fairly long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and then explains key details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. The structure is logical: purpose, include options, contact section, relationship section, team scope, and snapshot semantics. It's not overly verbose given the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple sections, team pooling), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return structure (contact, relationship), the meaning of fields, the 'me' special value, the team scope, and the snapshot semantics. The output schema exists, so return values are further specified. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra meaning: it explains the default behavior of include (dossier) and the meaning of 'extras'/'all', clarifies that person_id can be 'me', and details the team scope semantics. It also warns about reading contact.emails instead of top-level email. This adds value beyond the schema, though the schema already covers the basics.

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 tool returns one person's full record including profile, current role, and relationship context, with optional extras. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_people (which finds people) and my_profile (which is about yourself) by specifying the scope and the 'me' option. The verb 'get' and resource 'person' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to retrieve a person's record, with options for include and scope. It contrasts with search_people by noting that person_id comes from search_people hits, and it explains the 'me' usage for self. It also clarifies the difference between own and team scope, and when team_id is needed. This is comprehensive guidance.

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?