Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Submit assessment answers

submit_assessment
Idempotent

Scores assessment answers from start_assessment using EQIQs' scoring, saves the result to your profile (overwriting previous results for the framework), and returns a plain-language outcome.

Instructions

Score the answers collected via start_assessment with EQIQs' own scoring and save the result to the signed-in user's profile (overwrites an earlier result for that framework). Returns the result in plain language. Costs 1 unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesMap of question id to the user's answer, 'A' or 'B', for every question returned.
frameworkYesThe same framework key passed to start_assessment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / answers / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "A",
+    "B"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / answers / description
      Added value: +"Map of question id to the user's answer, 'A' or 'B', for every question returned."
    • addedInput schema / properties / framework / description
      Added value: +"The same framework key passed to start_assessment."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond those: 'Costs 1 unit' (cost), 'overwrites an earlier result for that framework' (side effect), and 'Returns the result in plain language' (output). It also mentions the signed-in user's profile, providing auth context. No contradictions with 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 with no filler. The action, workflow link, side effect, output, and cost are each covered in a compact and front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: cost, overwrite behavior, output format, and the prerequisite workflow (start_assessment). Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by linking both parameters to start_assessment: the framework is 'the same framework key passed to start_assessment' and answers are 'collected via start_assessment.' This gives agents additional semantic grounding beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Score the answers collected via start_assessment with EQIQs' own scoring and save the result to the signed-in user's profile.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing start_assessment and the specific action of submitting assessment answers, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly ties usage to start_assessment ('collected via start_assessment'), implying this tool is used after that one. It also notes overwriting earlier results for the same framework, which clarifies when repeated use is appropriate. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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