Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Prepare for a meeting

prep_meeting
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a meeting prep brief for 1-12 attendees: how to communicate with and persuade each person, and which pairings need care. Provide names or a department.

Instructions

Build a meeting prep brief for 1-12 attendees: how to communicate with and persuade each person, and which pairings in the room need care. Name attendees or pass a department. Read-only; costs 2 units.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoOptional meeting goal, e.g. 'agree the Q4 roadmap', used to tailor the advice.
membersNoProfile ids or full names of attendees (1-12). Omit when using department.
departmentNoUse everyone tagged with this department instead of naming members. Exact match first; refuses and asks for names if more than 12 people match or the name spans several departments.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / department / description
      Added value: +"Use everyone tagged with this department instead of naming members. Exact match first; refuses and asks for names if more than 12 people match or the name spans several departments."
    • addedInput schema / properties / department / maxLength
      Added value: +100
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / description
      Added value: +"Optional meeting goal, e.g. 'agree the Q4 roadmap', used to tailor the advice."
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / maxLength
      Added value: +300
    • addedInput schema / properties / members / description
      Added value: +"Profile ids or full names of attendees (1-12). Omit when using department."
    • addedInput schema / properties / members / maxItems
      Added value: +12
    • addedInput schema / properties / members / minItems
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds a concrete cost ('costs 2 units') and reinforces the safe read-only nature. It does not mention refusal behavior for ambiguous departments, but that is documented in the schema, so the description adds meaningful context beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by input modes and cost. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no required parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description covers the output contents, attendee range, both input modes, and cost. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently describes what the returned brief contains.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Name attendees or pass a department' restates the members/department alternative already documented in the schema, and it adds no new detail about the goal parameter or value formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('meeting prep brief'), and enumerates the brief's contents: how to communicate with and persuade each person, and which pairings need care. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like score_team or generate_narrative, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for preparing a meeting with 1-12 attendees and gives two input modes: 'Name attendees or pass a department.' It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as score_compatibility or suggest_lead, nor give exclusion conditions.

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