noticed

list_identity_matches

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the cross-source identity matches in your network, newest first — when each happened, the two identities that were linked (with their sources), the confidence, the reason, and the status (merged, pending review, or marked as different people). Pass person to scope to one person (matches on either side). Pass status to show only matches in that state — e.g. status='pending' for the review queue. Includes pending suggestions awaiting review. Answers "what identity matches have happened in my network?".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 20, max 100).
`person`	No	Optional person_id — only show matches involving this person.
`status`	No	Only show matches with this status. pending = awaiting review; auto_merged = merged / auto-merge tier; accepted = a confirmed candidate; rejected = marked different / vetoed.

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": {
+        "matches": {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "properties": {},
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "matches",
+        "total"
+      ],
+      "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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description isn't needed to establish safety. It adds real behavioral context by disclosing the sort order (newest first), that pending suggestions are included by default, and the shape of the result records. Minor omissions like pagination beyond the limit parameter prevent a 5, but the disclosure is strong.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and orders information from most to least important: purpose, result fields, parameter usage, then a mental-model summary. The closing quoted question is slightly redundant with the opening sentence but reinforces the tool's intent for an agent doing semantic matching.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with only 3 optional parameters, an output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description leaves no meaningful gap. Ordering, defaults, filtering, and result content are all specified. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value beyond the schema. The 'either side' parenthetical reveals non-obvious asymmetric matching semantics for the person parameter, and the status example ('status='pending' for the review queue') maps parameters to a concrete workflow. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance a schema alone wouldn't convey.

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 specific verb+resource: 'List the cross-source identity matches in your network, newest first' and goes on to detail the exact result fields (linked identities with sources, confidence, reason, status). The read semantics are immediately distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like accept_identity_match, dismiss_identity_match, and suggest_identity_match, so an agent can confidently tell this apart from every sibling.

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?

The description teaches how to use each filter ('Pass person to scope to one person (matches on either side)') and demonstrates a targeted use case ('status='pending' for the review queue'), plus clarifies the default inclusion of pending suggestions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context for scoping and filtering is unambiguous.

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?