noticed

move_profile_to_person

Destructive

Move one identifier (an email, LinkedIn, GitHub, X, or phone) off the record it's wrongly attached to and onto the person it really belongs to. Both records stay; the identifier and all its Gmail/Calendar/activity move with it, and noticed won't re-attach it to the old record. Pass from_person_id + identifier (as you see it — get_person shows a record's identifiers) + a to_person_id OR to_new_contact. Reversible from /logs. Fixes a mis-attached email/profile — to MERGE two records that are the same person, use accept_identity_match instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`identifier`	Yes	The identifier to move: an email, a LinkedIn URL/vanity, a phone number, or a source-prefixed profile id (email:a@b.com, linkedin:vanity, github:<numeric id>, x:<numeric id>, phone:<number>). For GitHub or X pass the NUMERIC id (get_person's github_user_id) or the source-prefixed id — a login/URL can't resolve. Must be one the from_person currently has.
`to_person_id`	No	persons.id to move it ONTO (an existing record). Pass this OR to_new_contact.
`from_person_id`	Yes	persons.id the identifier is CURRENTLY (wrongly) attached to.
`to_new_contact`	No	Create a brand-new contact to move the identifier onto — use when it belongs to someone not in your network. Pass this OR to_person_id.

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": {},
+      "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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the identifier and its Gmail/Calendar/activity move, both records persist ('the identifier ... off the record ... onto the person'), and it 'won't re-attach' to the old record. It also states reversibility via /logs. This is valuable disclosure beyond the annotations, though it stops short of detailing error conditions or permission requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph but every clause earns its place: the action, the side effects, the target options, and the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the verb ('Move...') and purpose. It could be trimmed slightly, but it avoids redundancy and remains readable for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (union-type parameter, nested object, destructive operation, no output schema), the description covers the essential decision points: when to use, what moves, that it's reversible, and what NOT to use it for. It doesn't explicitly cover error cases or the exact behavior if both targets are passed, but those are schema-enforceable. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

All four parameters are well documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds practical guidance: refers to get_person for the identifier, marks from_person_id as the 'wrongly attached' record, and explains the to_person_id vs to_new_contact choice. The schema already covers formats, but the description's clarification of the union (either-or) and the get_person hint adds value. Slight overlap with schema prevents a 5.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+outcome: 'Move one identifier ... off the record it's wrongly attached to and onto the person it really belongs to.' It states both the action and the intent (fixing a mis-attachment), distinguishing it from a merge tool. This is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (identifier wrongly attached) and when not to (merging two records → use accept_identity_match). It also provides a prerequisite hint (see identifiers via get_person) and the OR-choice between to_person_id and to_new_contact. Clear guidance with a named alternative.

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?