Skip to main content
Glama

noticed

by so.noticed.mcp

network_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lightweight overview of your network — total people, breakdowns by source/company, recent vs stale — without paging through search. scope:'team' returns your POOLED TEAM network instead: the distinct total known by ANY teammate plus each member's own network size + consent tier. For overall 'how many…' questions; for 'how many <role/type>' use search_people with the role filter and read total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNo'own' (default) — your network. 'team' — the pooled team network (total + per-member sizes).
team_idNoFor scope:'team' — the organizationId (from account_status.teams). Optional when you're in exactly one team; required otherwise.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether noticed completed the operation.
dataNoThe operation result when ok is true.
errorNoA human-readable error when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "scope": {
+          "enum": [
+            "own",
+            "team"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "sources": {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "properties": {},
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "team": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/sources/items"
+        },
+        "teams": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/sources"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the team-pooled semantics and that it returns 'the distinct total known by ANY teammate plus each member's own network size + consent tier.' This is additive and does not contradict annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core purpose, followed by scope details and usage guidance. While slightly run-on, every sentence adds value and no word is wasted, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is read-only and idempotent, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how parameters work, and when to choose an alternative. It fully supports an agent in calling it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter semantics by detailing what scope:'team' returns ('POOLED TEAM network', 'distinct total known by ANY teammate plus each member's own network size + consent tier') and clarifies default values and team_id requirements in the schema itself.

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 clearly states the tool provides a 'lightweight overview of your network' with concrete outputs like 'total people, breakdowns by source/company, recent vs stale.' It also differentiates itself from search_people by specifying the exact condition for using the alternative ('for how many <role/type> use search_people').

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 names the alternative (search_people) and the condition that selects it ('for overall how many…' vs 'how many <role/type>'). Also explains when to use the team scope and what it returns, leaving no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All noticed toolsInspect
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