Skip to main content
Glama
EQIQs

@eqiqs/mcp-server

Official
by EQIQs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Suggest who should lead

suggest_lead
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank 2–12 people for a leadership need, show the saved results behind each ranking, and flag thin data to support who should lead a project.

Instructions

Rank 2-12 people for leading a kind of work (execution, people, innovation or analysis), showing the saved results behind each ranking and any thin data. Use for 'who should lead this project?'. Decision-support only. Read-only; costs 2 units.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoKind of leadership the work needs.execution
membersNoProfile ids or full names of the people in the group (2-12). Omit when using department.
projectNoOptional project description echoed in the ranking.
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
kindNoType of work being led.
considerationsNoPeople to consider and why (not a ranking).

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": {
+    "considerations": {
+      "description": "People to consider and why (not a ranking).",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "description": "Type of work being led.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed9 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 / kind / default
      Added value: +"execution"
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"Kind of leadership the work needs."
    • addedInput schema / properties / members / description
      Added value: +"Profile ids or full names of the people in the group (2-12). Omit when using department."
    • addedInput schema / properties / members / maxItems
      Added value: +12
    • addedInput schema / properties / members / minItems
      Added value: +2
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Optional project description echoed in the ranking."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / maxLength
      Added value: +300
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a cost ('costs 2 units') and the 'Decision-support only' framing, plus noting that thin data is surfaced alongside rankings. It does not describe refusal/failure modes beyond what the schema says about department.

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 tight sentences with no waste: capability and output first, then the trigger phrase, then two short constraint statements. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and disclosed cost, an agent has everything needed to select and call this tool correctly.

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 kind, members, project, and department thoroughly, including the 2-12 bound and the department fallback behavior. The description restates the 2-12 range and the kind list without adding syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rank 2-12 people for leading a kind of work'), names the four kinds of leadership, and describes the output shape (rankings with saved results behind each and thin-data flags). It is clearly distinct from score_team, score_compatibility, and get_profile in the sibling list.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger phrase ('Use for "who should lead this project?"') and scopes the tool as 'Decision-support only', which tells the agent this is advisory rather than a decision-maker. It does not, however, name a competing sibling or state when to prefer score_team/score_compatibility instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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