Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get my profile

get_my_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the signed-in user's own EQIQs profile with results, plain-language labels, and missing frameworks. Use when users ask about themselves.

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoRelationship context the profile was filtered for.
profileNoThe person's profile fields that are visible in this context.
matched_byNoHow the signed-in user's own profile was found.
label_meaningsNoPlain-language meanings for the framework labels on the profile.
frameworks_totalNoTotal frameworks EQIQs uses (21).
framework_coverageNoHow many of the 21 frameworks have data.
frameworks_withheldNoHow many frameworks are hidden in this context (e.g. personal-life signals at work).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.17
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "context": {
+      "description": "Relationship context the profile was filtered for.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "framework_coverage": {
+      "description": "How many of the 21 frameworks have data.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "frameworks_total": {
+      "description": "Total frameworks EQIQs uses (21).",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "frameworks_withheld": {
+      "description": "How many frameworks are hidden in this context (e.g. personal-life signals at work).",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "label_meanings": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "$ref": "#/properties/profile/additionalProperties"
+      },
+      "description": "Plain-language meanings for the framework labels on the profile.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "matched_by": {
+      "description": "How the signed-in user's own profile was found.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "profile": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "The person's profile fields that are visible in this context.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. 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."
  3. 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the 1-unit cost and the fact that non-business contexts surface otherwise-withheld signals. It doesn't add rate-limit or failure behavior, but the added context is meaningful.

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 tight sentences: resource first, usage examples second, operational note last. No filler and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return format and side-effect details are already handled. Cost and context-dependent withholding are disclosed; the only thin spot is the absence of explicit sibling routing given the large cluster of profile-related tools.

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% and the single 'context' enum is fully documented in the schema, including what each value includes or withholds. The description does not restate or extend parameter semantics, 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 (return) and resource (the signed-in user's own EQIQs profile) and enumerates the payload contents (21-framework battery, labels, missing frameworks). The 'own'/signed-in qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_profile.

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 trigger examples ('what is my Enneagram type?', 'how do I come across at work?') that map user intent to this tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., how it differs from get_profile for another person), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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