noticed

memory_save

Idempotent

Save a durable fact/preference/decision/commitment to long-term memory. Deduplicates against existing memories. Pass person to attach the memory to a specific contact's record in addition to the global store.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`person`	No	Name or identifier of a specific person in your network this memory is about. When set, the memory is attached to that person's PRM record in addition to the global memory store.
`content`	Yes	The memory to save.
`category`	No	Defaults to 'fact'.
`confidence`	No	0-1 confidence (default 0.9).

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": {
+        "action": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "prmMemoryId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "stored": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "stored",
+        "action"
+      ],
+      "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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: deduplication against existing memories, storage in a global store, and optional attachment to a specific contact's PRM record. This helps the agent anticipate side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is three focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the deduplication behavior and the optional person attachment. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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?

For a well-schemaed tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral nuances: durability, deduplication, and person scoping. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling 'add_memory' tool, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent choosing among similar tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 four parameters. The description adds a little emphasis on the 'person' parameter's attach-to-contact behavior, but that information is also present in the schema. This is the baseline score for full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: save a durable fact/preference/decision/commitment to long-term memory, with deduplication and optional person attachment. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'add_memory', which appears to serve a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when storing durable long-term memories that should be deduplicated and possibly linked to a contact), but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'add_memory'. There are no exclusions or alternative routing instructions.

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?