Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get my profile

get_my_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve your EQIQs profile across 21 frameworks (MBTI, Big Five, Enneagram, DISC) with labels and missing assessments. Use it to answer questions about your traits and work style.

Instructions

Return the signed-in user's own EQIQs profile: results across the 21-framework battery (MBTI, Big Five, Enneagram, DISC, EQ and more), plain-language labels, and which frameworks are still missing. Use when the user asks about themselves, e.g. 'what is my Enneagram type?' or 'how do I come across at work?'. Read-only; costs 1 unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoRelationship context that sets framework weighting. 'business' (default) is work-safe and withholds personal-life signals (love language, attachment style, date of birth); the other contexts include them.business

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / default
      Added value: +"business"
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Relationship context. Business (default) withholds personal-life signals: love language, attachment style, date of birth."New value: +"Relationship context that sets framework weighting. 'business' (default) is work-safe and withholds personal-life signals (love language, attachment style, date of birth); the other contexts include them."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the call is 'Read-only' and 'costs 1 unit', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also discloses that the returned data is scoped to the signed-in user, clarifying side-effect-free behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what is returned, when to use it, and cost/safety. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents (profiles, labels, missing frameworks), usage trigger, read-only safety, and cost. It does not describe the context parameter in the tool description, but the schema fully covers that, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%: the only parameter, 'context', is already fully documented in the schema with its enum values, default, and behavioral impact on which personal-life signals are withheld. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly scopes the resource to the signed-in user's own profile, distinguishing it from siblings like get_profile and list_profiles. It also enumerates the contents (21-framework battery, plain-language labels, missing frameworks), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when the user asks about themselves') with concrete examples. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use them, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools