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 up to 12 attendees, detailing how to communicate with and persuade each person and which pairings need care. Name attendees or pass 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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoStated meeting goal.
peopleNoHow to work with each attendee.
goal_tipsNoTips tied to the goal.
watch_pairsNoPairings that need care.
weakest_pairNoThe pairing with the lowest score.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.17
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "goal": {
+      "description": "Stated meeting goal.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "goal_tips": {
+      "description": "Tips tied to the goal.",
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "people": {
+      "description": "How to work with each attendee.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "watch_pairs": {
+      "description": "Pairings that need care.",
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/properties/people/items"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "weakest_pair": {
+      "description": "The pairing with the lowest score."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. 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
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: a cost of 2 units and the 1-12 attendee ceiling. It does not describe latency or what happens on partial failures, but the quota disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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 tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then input modes, then the read-only/cost footer. No filler, and the most important information 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers scope, inputs, cost, and safety adequately for a read-only analysis tool. The only gap is sibling differentiation, which is not required for correct invocation but would help routing.

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 goal, members, and department, including the omit-members-when-using-department rule and the department match/refusal behavior. The description's 'Name attendees or pass a department' largely restates what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Build a meeting prep brief' — and details the output (how to communicate with and persuade each attendee, risky pairings) plus the scope (1-12 attendees). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like score_team, score_compatibility, or generate_narrative.

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 use case (preparing for a meeting) and gives the two input modes ('Name attendees or pass a department'), which is useful. However, it never states when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks like compatibility scoring or team analysis, leaving routing to inference.

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