Skip to main content
Glama
verIdyia

AutoEQ MCP Server

by verIdyia

eq_recommend

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find headphones matching your sound preference and type using Harman preference scores. Specify sound profile and form factor for personalized recommendations.

Instructions

Recommend headphones based on sound preference and type. Sorted by Harman preference score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
preferenceNoSound preference: neutral, warm, bright, bass, vocal, analytical, fun. Or free text.neutral
form_factorNoType: over-ear, in-ear, earbud
limitNoNumber of recommendations

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the eq_recommend tool handler.
    async def eq_recommend(
        preference: str = Field(
            default="neutral",
            description="Sound preference: neutral, warm, bright, bass, vocal, analytical, fun. Or free text.",
        ),
        form_factor: str = Field(default="", description="Type: over-ear, in-ear, earbud"),
        limit: int = Field(default=10, description="Number of recommendations"),
    ) -> str:
        """Recommend headphones based on sound preference and type. Sorted by Harman preference score."""
        conn = get_db()
    
        pref_map = {
            "neutral": ["Neutral", "Harman-like"],
            "warm": ["Warm"],
            "bright": ["Bright"],
            "bass": ["Bass-heavy", "Warm"],
            "vocal": ["Mid-forward", "Neutral"],
            "analytical": ["Bright", "Neutral"],
            "fun": ["V-shaped", "U-shaped"],
        }
    
        pref_lower = preference.lower().strip()
        target_sigs = pref_map.get(pref_lower, [])
    
        if target_sigs:
            sig_conditions = " OR ".join(["signature LIKE ?"] * len(target_sigs))
            params = [f"%{s}%" for s in target_sigs]
            where = f"({sig_conditions})"
        else:
            where = "signature LIKE ?"
            params = [f"%{preference}%"]
    
        if form_factor:
            where += " AND form_factor = ?"
            params.append(form_factor)
    
        params.append(min(limit, 30))
        rows = conn.execute(
            f"""SELECT name, source, coupler, form_factor, signature, score, std_db, slope
                FROM headphones
                WHERE {where} AND signature != ''
                ORDER BY score DESC NULLS LAST, std_db ASC NULLS LAST
                LIMIT ?""",
            params,
        ).fetchall()
        conn.close()
    
        if not rows:
            return f"No headphones found for '{preference}' preference."
    
        lines = [f"## Recommendations ({preference}, {form_factor or 'all types'})"]
        for i, r in enumerate(rows, 1):
            score = f" score:{r['score']}" if r["score"] else ""
            std = f" STD:{r['std_db']}dB" if r["std_db"] else ""
            lines.append(
                f"{i}. **{r['name']}** — {r['source']} | {r['form_factor']} | {r['signature']}{score}{std}"
            )
        return "\n".join(lines)
  • autoeq_mcp.py:776-784 (registration)
    The registration of the eq_recommend tool.
        name="eq_recommend",
        annotations={
            "title": "Recommend headphones",
            "readOnlyHint": True,
            "destructiveHint": False,
            "idempotentHint": True,
            "openWorldHint": False,
        },
    )
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions sorting by Harman preference score, which is useful but doesn't detail rate limits, auth needs, or output format. No contradiction 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function, criteria, and sorting method without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and sorting method, but could improve by briefly mentioning when to use versus siblings or output expectations.

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 parameters. The description adds marginal value by hinting at the purpose of 'preference' and 'form_factor' but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Recommend headphones') and the key criteria ('based on sound preference and type'), distinguishing it from siblings like eq_compare or eq_search by focusing on personalized recommendations. It also mentions the sorting method ('Sorted by Harman preference score'), adding specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eq_search or eq_ranking, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for headphone recommendations but lacks explicit context for tool selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/verIdyia/autoeq-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server