noticed

track_intro

Destructive

Track a promised introduction — someone offered to connect the user with a person they haven't met yet. Creates (no intro_id) or updates (intro_id) a pending intro tied to the connector, so the offer doesn't evaporate in notes. Partial info is fine ('still waiting on their name'). When the intro lands: add the person to the network, then pass resolved_person_id here to graduate it (marks done).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Context — where the offer happened, why it matters.
`status`	No	waiting (default: still missing info) · ready (ready to ask) · requested (intro asked) · done (it happened) · dropped.
`intro_id`	No	Existing intro id (from list_intros) to update. Omit to create.
`offered_on`	No	Date the intro was offered (YYYY-MM-DD).
`target_org`	No	Their company/org, if known.
`target_name`	No	The person being offered, as known so far — partial is fine.
`missing_fields`	No	What's still needed before asking (e.g. ['name','linkedin']).
`resolved_person_id`	No	The real contact's person id once the intro happened — implies status done unless you pass a status explicitly.
`connector_person_id`	No	Who offered the intro (their person id from search_people).

Output 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.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / resolved_person_id / description

Previous value: -"The real contact's person id once the intro happened — implies status done."New value: +"The real contact's person id once the intro happened — implies status done unless you pass a status explicitly."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "intro": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "properties": {
+            "connector_name": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "connector_person_id": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "id": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "notes": {
+              "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/intro/properties/target_org"
+            },
+            "resolved_person_id": {
+              "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/intro/properties/target_org"
+            },
+            "status": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "target_name": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "target_org": {
+              "type": [
+                "string",
+                "null"
+              ]
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "intro"
+      ],
+      "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

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'create or update' language is consistent with that. It adds real behavioral detail about the done-state transition via resolved_person_id. However, with destructiveHint=true on a zero-required-param upsert, it never says whether a partial update overwrites existing notes/status, which is the risky behavior an agent would need warned about.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the create/update mechanic, then the completion path. The parenthetical example ('still waiting on their name') earns its place by showing tolerance for partial data; nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the definition supplies what an agent needs to pick the right mode and finish the workflow. The one gap is upsert merge behavior — whether unspecified fields are preserved on update — which matters for a 9-param tool with no required fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds cross-parameter meaning: presence/absence of intro_id toggles create vs update, and resolved_person_id implies status=done unless status is passed explicitly. That mode-switching semantics is not obvious from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Track a promised introduction') and immediately names its scope: someone offered to connect the user with a person they haven't met. It also distinguishes the create vs update modes inline via 'no intro_id' / 'intro_id', so an agent can tell it apart from list_intros and add_to_network without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: capture an offer so it 'doesn't evaporate in notes', and update an existing record when an intro_id exists. It also sequences the follow-up workflow ('add the person to the network, then pass resolved_person_id here to graduate it'), naming the sibling call that must precede it.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?