noticed

list_profile_gaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the contacts in your network that are MISSING a profile — email-only people with no LinkedIn or GitHub attached (and no pending merge). These are the ones you can enrich with add_profile_to_person by giving noticed their LinkedIn/GitHub URL. Each row has person_id, name, email, and any URL already submitted (pending). Read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max contacts (default 25, max 100).

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description states it's read-only and idempotent (matching annotations), and describes the output fields (person_id, name, email, any URL already submitted). It doesn't cover edge cases like no results or errors, but the annotation hints and the description together provide adequate transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'no LinkedIn or GitHub' and 'any URL already submitted') and a minor typo ('giving noticed'). It could be tightened without losing clarity, so it's slightly above average but not exceptional.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool returns (rows with specific fields), the criteria for inclusion, and the relationship to add_profile_to_person. Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and result. Nothing critical 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?

The single 'limit' parameter is described with default and max values, and the schema includes a description. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, but the added context about the default and maximum elevates it to 4.

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 lists contacts missing a profile, specifies the criteria (email-only, no LinkedIn/GitHub, no pending merge), and explicitly ties it to the add_profile_to_person tool. This distinguishes it from other list tools like list_people or list_identity_matches.

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 implies usage when you need to find contacts to enrich with profiles, and mentions the companion tool add_profile_to_person. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast with alternative listing tools, though the unique purpose makes the usage context clear.

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?