Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Score two people

score_compatibility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess compatibility between two people with a 0-100 score, sub-scores, reasons, and practical tips for business, romantic, friendship, or coparenting contexts.

Instructions

Score how two people work (or relate) together, 0-100, with a visual score card, sub-scores (communication, values, conflict and more), why the score landed where it did, and practical tips. Use for one pair; use score_team for three or more. Decision-support only, never the sole basis for hiring, promotion or termination. 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
person_aYesFirst person. Accepts a profile id, an exact email, or a full name. If a name matches more than one person the tool asks which one instead of guessing.
person_bYesSecond person. Accepts a profile id, an exact email, or a full name. If a name matches more than one person the tool asks which one instead of guessing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / default
      Added value: +"business"
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Added 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."
    • addedInput schema / properties / context / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "business",
+  "romantic",
+  "friendship",
+  "coparenting"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / person_a / description
      Added value: +"First person. Accepts a profile id, an exact email, or a full name. If a name matches more than one person the tool asks which one instead of guessing."
    • addedInput schema / properties / person_b / description
      Added value: +"Second person. Accepts a profile id, an exact email, or a full name. If a name matches more than one person the tool asks which one instead of guessing."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'Read-only; costs 1 unit' and emphasizing the decision-support-only nature, which are useful operational constraints.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct value: outcome, sibling differentiation, usage caveat, and cost/read-only status. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return elements: visual score card, sub-scores, explanation, and tips. It also handles context selection via the schema, and the sibling guidance covers alternative tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 fully documents context, person_a, and person_b. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, but it does list sub-scores that help infer what the tool evaluates. This matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 action ('Score how two people work or relate together'), the output (0-100 score card, sub-scores, rationale, tips), and distinguishes itself from score_team. This gives an agent a clear picture of what the tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use for one pair; use score_team for three or more,' naming the alternative and the exact selection condition. It also adds a decision-support caveat ('never the sole basis for hiring, promotion or termination'), which helps an agent judge appropriate use.

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