noticed

set_general_access

DestructiveIdempotent

After user confirmation, set a List or View to restricted, Team-visible, or anyone-with-link access. Link access is view-only. Does not create invitations or collaborator grants.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes
`access`	Yes
`list_id`	No	The list id. Pass this OR list_name.
`view_id`	No	The View id. Pass this OR view_name.
`list_name`	No	The list name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR list_id.
`view_name`	No	The View name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR view_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: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "canonical_url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "effective_role": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "general_access": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "general_access_role": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "is_published": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "public_url": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/general_access_role"
+        },
+        "resource_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "resource_type": {
+          "enum": [
+            "list",
+            "view"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "resource_id"
+      ],
+      "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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already indicate that the tool is destructive and not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires user confirmation, states that link access is view-only, and explicitly notes that it does not create invitations or collaborator grants. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and clarifies potential side effects and prerequisites.

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 concise, using three short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add key clarifications. There is no redundant or extraneous content, and the structure guides the reader from action to constraints and exclusions efficiently.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the core action, prerequisites, and exclusions thoroughly. The main gap is the lack of explanation for the 'role' parameter, which is a minor omission in an otherwise complete description. Overall, the tool is well-contextualized for an agent.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for four of six parameters, giving a coverage of 67%. The description adds meaning for the 'access' parameter by enumerating the allowed values (restricted, team-visible, anyone-with-link), but it does not explain the 'role' parameter or how it interacts with access. Since coverage is moderate and not low, the description partially compensates but leaves the role parameter unclear.

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 that the tool sets a List or View to one of three access levels (restricted, team-visible, or anyone-with-link), plus clarifies that link access is view-only. It also explicitly states what the tool does not do (create invitations or collaborator grants), distinguishing it from related sharing functions. The verb 'set' and specific resource (List or View) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a usage condition ('After user confirmation') and clarifies that the tool does not create invitations or collaborator grants, which helps a user decide when to invoke it over other sharing-related tools. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like set_published or update_list, so the guidance is slightly indirect. Overall, the context is sufficient for selection in most cases.

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?