EQIQs

Start an assessment in chat

start_assessment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the questions for one EQIQs framework so the user can take it inside the chat. Ask them one at a time, word for word, accepting only A or B. Call with no framework to list what the user has not completed yet. Personal frameworks (attachment, love language) need the user's explicit consent. Read-only; costs 1 unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`framework`	No	Framework key, e.g. 'mbti', 'disc', 'enneagram', 'big_five'. Omit to list remaining frameworks.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`missing`	No	Frameworks still to take.
`completed`	No	Frameworks already completed.
`framework`	No	Framework whose questions are returned.
`questions`	No	Questions with A/B options.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "completed": {
+      "description": "Frameworks already completed.",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "framework": {
+      "description": "Framework whose questions are returned.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "missing": {
+      "description": "Frameworks still to take.",
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/properties/completed/items"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "questions": {
+      "description": "Questions with A/B options.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / framework / description

Added value: +"Framework key, e.g. 'mbti', 'disc', 'enneagram', 'big_five'. Omit to list remaining frameworks."

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, so the bar is low, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: a cost of 1 unit, a consent precondition for personal frameworks, and an interaction protocol (one question at a time, verbatim, A/B answers only). None of that is derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with no filler across four short sentences. It is dense — purpose, protocol, no-arg behavior, consent, and cost in one paragraph — but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent-facing concerns: the no-argument listing mode, consent gating, interaction protocol, and cost. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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% and the schema already documents the omit-to-list behavior, but the description adds value the schema cannot: per-value semantics that some framework values are 'personal' and require explicit user consent. It goes slightly beyond the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter.

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+resource (fetch the questions for one EQIQs framework) and immediately clarifies the delivery mode ('inside the chat'). It is clearly separable from siblings like submit_assessment, which presumably records results rather than starts a session.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions: call with no framework to list uncompleted frameworks, and obtain explicit consent before personal frameworks (attachment, love language). It does not explicitly name the sibling that handles the opposite half of the flow (submit_assessment), so routing to alternatives is left implicit.

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

All EQIQs 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?