Skip to main content
Glama

noticed

by so.noticed.mcp

update_view

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a View or replace its saved definition. Identify it by view_id or an unambiguous view_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew View name.
view_idNoThe View id. Pass this OR view_name.
view_nameNoThe View name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR view_id.
definitionNo

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: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "The operation result when ok is true.",
+      "properties": {
+        "created_at": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "definition": {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "description": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "effective_role": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "organization_id": {
+          "$ref": "#/properties/data/properties/description"
+        },
+        "updated_at": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "view_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "view_id",
+        "name"
+      ],
+      "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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry destructive/read-only hints, and the description usefully clarifies that the saved definition and current name are the affected data. The 'unambiguous view_name' warning helps prevent accidental updates to the wrong view.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the operation and then cover identifier disambiguation. There is no redundant restatement of the tool title or schema content.

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 an update tool with rich schema definitions, this description captures what to change, how to identify the target, and the important ambiguity caveat. It leaves subtle questions like simultaneous rename-and-replace unspecified, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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?

The schema already covers most parameter meanings, but the description adds meaningful selection guidance: choose view_id or a view_name that is unambiguous, and confirms that name/definition are the updatable aspects. This goes beyond the schema's literal param notes.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it can rename a View or replace its saved definition. This distinguishes it from create_view, get_view, delete_view, and list_views without restating the title.

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 clearly implies this is for updating an existing View, and it gives concrete identifier guidance: use view_id or an unambiguous view_name. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the intended usage is clear.

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