List visible personal and Team Views, including each saved definition and effective access role. Start here when the user names a View.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+ "properties": {
+ "views": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "created_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "definition": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "effective_role": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "organization_id": {
+ "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/views/items/properties/description"
+ },
+ "updated_at": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "view_id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "view_id",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "views"
+ ],
+ "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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds detail about returning 'saved definition and effective access role', but doesn't mention side effects. It is consistent with annotations, so it adds some but not extensive behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that are concise and front-load the main action. The second sentence provides usage guidance, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers what the tool returns (visible views with definitions and roles) and gives a usage hint. Given no parameters and a simple list operation, it seems complete, though output schema details are not described (but that's not required).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States it lists visible personal and Team Views with definitions and access roles, clearly distinguishing from other list_* tools for actions, lists, etc. The verb 'List' and resource 'Views' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Start here when the user names a View.', which gives a clear when-to-use directive. It implies it's the appropriate first step for viewing operations, though it doesn't contrast with alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.