noticed

memory_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search your long-term memory (facts, decisions, preferences, commitments). Use before answering questions about past context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	What to search for.
`minScore`	No	Minimum similarity 0-1 (default 0.3).
`maxResults`	No	Max results.
`memoryType`	No	Filter by memory type (default all).

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": {
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "content": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "createdAt": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "memoryType": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "similarity": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "sourceDate": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "content"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile in structured data. The description adds the content scope of searchable memory (facts, decisions, preferences, commitments) but discloses no further behavioral traits such as result freshness, memory coverage limits, or exclusivity of long-term memory. It adds modest value beyond the annotations, earning a 3.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the action and memory scope are front-loaded, followed by a single-line usage directive. Every clause carries information not already present in the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, idempotent search tool with 100% schema coverage, a rich annotation set, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. The main remaining gap is the absence of explicit routing between memory_search and memory_get, but the 'use before answering questions about past context' directive provides sufficient operational placement.

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 all four parameters (query, minScore, maxResults, memoryType) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The parenthetical memory-content list gives loose semantic context for what query matches against, but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema. No compensation is required and none is meaningfully added.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair, 'Search your long-term memory,' and enumerates the memory scope: facts, decisions, preferences, commitments. This clearly marks it as a query operation, implicitly distinct from write siblings like memory_save and add_memory. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from memory_get, a similarly named retrieval sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use before answering questions about past context' is explicit, actionable trigger guidance that tells an agent when this tool should be invoked. It provides clear context but names no alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions, such as a pointer to memory_get for direct key-based retrieval. This matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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?