Emergent Technologies

Check program fit

check_program_fit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs the same matching rules as emergenttechnologies.ai/fit on a person's answers and says which kind of program fits (data licensing, the referral partner program, or expert work) and why. It collects and saves nothing and takes no personal details. To see their specific route and proceed, the person continues at /fit, where they enter their own details with consent.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "check_program_fit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	company = owns or runs a company; closed = the company closed; professional = lawyer, doctor, accountant, exec; partner = brings deals
`role`	No	Professional path
`reach`	No	Partner path: how many companies they can reach
`tools`	No	Systems the company uses; paper = mostly paper
`years`	No	Years of records: lt3, 3to5, 5to10, 10plus
`serves`	No	Who the company mostly serves
`status`	No	Company path: is it still operating?
`country`	No	us; ca_uk_au = Canada, UK or Australia; other
`industry`	No
`interest`	No	Company paths: license = license the records; refer = offer this to clients; both
`language`	No	Language of most records
`licensed`	No	Professional path: licensed in their field?
`dataTypes`	No
`employees`	No	People at the company (at its peak if closed)
`partnerType`	No	Partner path
`industryDetail`	No	When industry is other

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`why`	Yes
`fits`	Yes
`meta`	Yes
`route`	Yes
`captured`	Yes
`programs`	Yes
`continueAt`	Yes
`whatHappensThere`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond those: it states that nothing is collected or saved and that no personal details are taken, and it explains the consent boundary at /fit. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned rationale, but an output schema exists to cover that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences with a clear progression: what it does, what it does not retain, and where the human continues. The final sentence is mildly directive but still earns its place by routing the user correctly; no filler otherwise.

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 16-parameter read-only matcher with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, privacy posture, and the handoff path. The main residual gap is that the branching logic across paths is left to the individual parameter descriptions rather than summarized here.

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 88% with enumerated, described values, and 14 of 16 parameters are enums, so the schema carries most of the semantic load. The description adds only the framing that these parameters are 'a person's answers'; it doesn't explain the path-dependent structure (which parameters apply to company, professional, and partner paths).

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 gives a specific verb and resource — it runs the same matching rules as emergenttechnologies.ai/fit against a person's answers and returns which of three program types fits, plus the reasoning. The three outcomes (data licensing, referral partner, expert work) implicitly separate it from siblings like partner_program and consulting_offer, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: this is the eligibility/matching step that reads a person's answers, and the human continues at /fit to get their specific route and submit details with consent. That cleanly bounds the tool's role, though there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Emergent Technologies 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?