noticed

update_action

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit an existing action — change its text, its remind-me date, or mark it done/undone. Get the action_id from get_person → relationship.actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`done`	No	true → mark done; false → reopen. Omit to leave unchanged.
`content`	No	Updated text for the action. Omit to leave unchanged.
`action_id`	Yes	The action to update (from get_person → relationship.actions).
`remind_at`	No	Updated remind-me date — can be a due date, a start date, or any follow-up date (ISO timestamp). Pass null to clear. Omit to leave unchanged.

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": {
+        "updated": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "updated"
+      ],
+      "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

Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations indicating destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description explicitly mentions 'edit' which implies modification, and importantly clarifies the semantics of the 'done' field (true marks done, false reopens). It adds behavioral clarity about how updates work (partial updates via omitted fields) which goes beyond annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists the editable fields. It also front-loads the critical action_id source instruction. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered by that. The key missing information would be permissions or side-effect details, but annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description covers the essential 'how to get the ID' and what can be updated, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds a concise overview of what can be changed, reinforcing the existing schema descriptions. It does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 edits an existing action and specifies exactly what can be changed (text, remind-me date, done status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_action, complete_action, and delete_action by focusing on editing an existing action.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the action_id (via get_person → relationship.actions), which is crucial for correct invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like complete_action, but the context is clear enough for typical editing scenarios.

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?