EQIQs

Submit assessment answers

submit_assessment

Idempotent

Score the answers collected via start_assessment with EQIQs' own scoring and save the result to the signed-in user's profile (overwrites an earlier result for that framework). Returns the result in plain language. Costs 1 unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answers`	Yes	Map of question id to the user's answer, 'A' or 'B', for every question returned.
`framework`	Yes	The same framework key passed to start_assessment.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	No	Resulting type or level.
`framework`	No	Framework scored.
`profile_id`	No	Profile the result was saved to.

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": {
+    "framework": {
+      "description": "Framework scored.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "profile_id": {
+      "description": "Profile the result was saved to.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "Resulting type or level.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / answers / additionalProperties

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "A",
+    "B"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / answers / description

Added value: +"Map of question id to the user's answer, 'A' or 'B', for every question returned."

addedInput schema / properties / framework / description

Added value: +"The same framework key passed to start_assessment."

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for what it adds beyond them: the write overwrites a prior result for the same framework, the call costs 1 unit, and output is plain language. The overwrite notice is the key disclosure, though it sits slightly in tension with destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded sentences covering action, side effect, return, and cost, with zero filler. The overwrite constraint and cost are surfaced early rather than buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description supplies the prerequisite tool, the overwrite behavior, cost, and the return style. Return value details are legitimately left to the output schema; only the per-framework overwrite scope nuance could be sharper.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the A/B answer map and that framework must match start_assessment. The description reinforces the provenance of 'answers' but adds no format or shape detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Score the answers') and ties it to the sibling tool that produces the input ('collected via start_assessment'), then names the effect ('save the result to the signed-in user's profile'). This clearly separates it from score_compatibility, score_team, and start_assessment without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'answers collected via start_assessment' establishes the required upstream call and the precondition for use. It does not state exclusions (e.g., what to do for a different framework or when no assessment was started), but the workflow context is clear enough to invoke correctly.

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?