noticed

mark_different_people

DestructiveIdempotent

Mark two records as DIFFERENT people — a durable disconnect. Records that they are not the same person so noticed won't suggest (or auto-) merge them again. Reversible by an admin. Limited to 25 per day per network. Identify them by candidate_id, OR person_a + person_b, OR profile_a + profile_b (the profile pair from a review-queue row — use this to clear email→person false positives). For a soft 'not now', use dismiss_identity_match instead.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`person_a`	No	persons.id — alternative to candidate_id; pass with person_b.
`person_b`	No	persons.id — pass with person_a.
`profile_a`	No	Source-prefixed profile id (e.g. email:a@b.com) — the profile_a from a pending review-queue row. Use for the email→person review queue (candidate_id null, one side has no person). Pass with profile_b.
`profile_b`	No	Source-prefixed profile id (e.g. github:123) — the profile_b from list_identity_matches. Pass with profile_a.
`candidate_id`	No	merge_candidates id of a pending match (the candidate_id from list_identity_matches).

Output 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.

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": {
+        "marked_different": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "marked_different",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "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

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing that the block is durable (prevents future suggestion or auto-merge), that it is reversible by an admin, and that there is a hard limit of 25 per day per network. Those are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the effect and durability in the first clause, then constraints, then identification modes, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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 destructive, non-idempotent-looking action with an output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, rate limit, and all invocation modes, so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing. The return value is handled by the output schema and need not be described.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the pairing logic the schema only implies per-field: which parameters form an alternative set and which scenario (review-queue row, candidate lookup) each set serves. It does not restate types, but it does clarify the OR structure between the five parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark two records as DIFFERENT people') plus the resulting state ('a durable disconnect'), which no sibling in the list implies. It distinguishes itself from the soft-path sibling dismiss_identity_match and from suggest/accept variants by naming them explicitly.

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?

Gives three mutually exclusive identification routes (candidate_id, person_a + person_b, profile_a + profile_b) with the condition that selects each, including the specific email→person false-positive case. It also names the explicit alternative for 'not now' (dismiss_identity_match), so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?