Skip to main content
Glama

noticed

by so.noticed.mcp

remove_from_list

DestructiveIdempotent

Take a person off a list. Removes the membership only — the person stays in your network, and noticed may suggest them for this list again later. Identify the list by list_id or list_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idNoThe list's id (from list_lists / create_list). Pass this OR list_name.
list_nameNoThe list's name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR list_id.
person_idYesThe person's id to take off the list.

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": false,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "list_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "person_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "removed": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "list_id",
+        "person_id",
+        "removed"
+      ],
+      "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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. Beyond that, the description meaningfully adds that the person remains in the network and that suggestions may recur — which are non-obvious behavioral consequences for a destructive operation. It does not fully detail what happens to other list memberships or whether removal cascades, but the key semantic boundary is disclosed.

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?

Three precise sentences with zero filler. The core action and its non-destructive consequence for the network are front-loaded, followed by identifier guidance. Every sentence contributes distinct 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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description is nearly complete. It covers the one ambiguous area (membership vs. network removal) and identifier method. Minor absence: it doesn't state that the operation is idempotent in plain language, but the annotation already supplies that, so the description need not repeat it.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter already documented, so the schema carries the primary burden. The description adds a small interpretive note: list_id OR list_name are alternatives, matching the schema's 'Pass this OR' phrasing and the case-insensitivity detail. No new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('take off') and resource ('list'), and unambiguously differentiates membership removal from removing the person from the network. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_to_list or remove_from_network beyond the 'stays in your network' phrase, so sibling differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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?

The description conveys a clear context: use this when removing membership only, not the person from the network. It implies the alternative (remove_from_network) by clarifying what it does not do, and it explicitly tells how to identify the list (by list_id or list_name). It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, so not a full 5.

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