Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List saved pairings

list_relationships
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve saved compatibility pairings with their scores and scoring context. Compare earlier results without re-scoring each pair.

Instructions

List compatibility pairings the user has already saved, with each pair's score and the context it was scored in. Use to recall earlier comparisons without re-scoring. Read-only; costs 1 unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return (1-100, default 25).
contextNoOptional filter: only pairings scored in this context.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Added value: +"Optional filter: only pairings scored in this context."
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "business",
+  "romantic",
+  "friendship",
+  "coparenting"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Added value: +25
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum rows to return (1-100, default 25)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"
  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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' line adds no new safety information. However, it adds meaningful context beyond annotations with 'costs 1 unit' (a rate/cost disclosure) and clarifies the output shape ('score and context'), which is not present in annotations.

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 sentences: the first delivers the purpose, the second gives the primary use case, and the third provides safety/cost. Every sentence contributes new information, with no filler or repetition of schema details. The key distinction from siblings is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with 0 required params and complete schema descriptions, the description covers the essential return data (score + context) and cost. It does not mention the optional context filter, but that is already fully documented in the schema. The tool's behavior when no saved pairings exist is not stated, but this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema already includes detailed descriptions for both the limit and context parameters, including the default, range, and enum values. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('compatibility pairings the user has already saved'), and specifies the returned data ('each pair's score and the context it was scored in'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like score_compatibility by framing it as a way to 'recall earlier comparisons without re-scoring'.

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 'Use to recall earlier comparisons without re-scoring' provides clear usage context and implies the alternative (scoring new comparisons). It does not explicitly name the sibling tool or state when not to use it, but the intent is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it 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