eng-leadership-toolkit

Team lead readiness test — should this engineer become a team lead?

assess_team_lead_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers "should I become a team lead?" with the same 17-question test as the live tool at marian.coach: 6 dimensions (people appetite, letting go of code, ownership beyond your tickets, translation & saying no, motivation, org reality), a straight verdict — ready now / 6-12 months out / stay IC (and that's fine) — plus the top-2 gap dimensions with one concrete move each. Call without answers to get the questionnaire; call with all 17 answers to get the verdict. Built from 3,400+ mentoring sessions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answers`	No	Answers keyed by question id (q1-q17), each the 0-based index of the chosen option for that question (NOT a rating — option scores are calibrated and non-monotonic). Omit to receive the 17 questions with their options first.
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`math`	No	Napkin math behind the case.
`email`	No	Forwardable email to the manager.
`level`	No	Seniority level the score maps to, when the tool computes one.
`report`	Yes	The full human-readable report.
`source`	Yes	Canonical marian.coach page this answer is derived from.
`verdict`	No	Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.
`evidence`	No	Sources the case may cite.
`onePager`	No	Manager-facing one-pager, forwardable to finance.
`salaryEur`	No	Estimated 2026 Western-Europe gross annual salary in EUR.
`objections`	No	The usual objections, answered.
`slackShort`	No	Slack/Teams-length version of the ask.
`totalScore`	No	Weighted 0-10 score, when the tool computes one.
`valueFormula`	No	The four value lines to add up (money saved, cost of delay, missed opportunity, roadmap slippage) plus the count-then-halve CFO rule.
`talkingPoints`	No	Five talking points for the conversation.
`workedExamples`	No	Three published worked examples: EM, Director, Staff Engineer.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the two invocation modes, what each returns, and the composition of the response with verdict categories and gap dimensions. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with purpose and outcomes, and uses three dense sentences. The closing '3,400+ mentoring sessions' is a credibility signal rather than an invocation requirement, but it doesn't hurt clarity.

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?

An agent knows both invocation modes, the response shape, the strict context requirement, and the tool's scope. The output schema and input schema cover the remaining specifics, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The schema already provides strong coverage: answers are keyed q1-q17 with 0-based indices, and context has strict length/person rules. The description adds the 'all 17 answers' requirement and maps that to the verdict, extending the schema's semantics slightly.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers, 'should I become a team lead?', and specifies the resource: a 17-question test with defined output (verdict, top-2 gaps). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_developer_value or get_first_time_manager_guidance without needing to name them.

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?

It gives concrete call-mode guidance: call without answers to get the questionnaire, call with all 17 answers to get the verdict. It doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the triggering scenario is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

All eng-leadership-toolkit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: assessing readiness, building a business case, calculating value for two different roles, choosing a mentor type, estimating cost, fetching benchmarks, providing guidance, and offering 1:1 playbooks. The only slight overlap is between assess_team_lead_readiness and get_first_time_manager_guidance, both addressing the IC-to-manager transition, but the former is a test with a verdict and the latter is broader guidance, so they remain distinguishable.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: assess_, build_, calculate_, choose_, estimate_, get_. The verbs accurately describe the action, and the nouns specify the object. There are no mixing conventions or vague names like 'process' or 'run'. This is a highly predictable and coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the count is right in the sweet spot for a focused toolkit. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the leadership development domain, and none feel redundant or superfluous. The number is substantial enough to cover multiple use cases without overwhelming users.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of leadership development needs: readiness assessment, business case creation, market value calculators for both developers and managers, mentor/coach selection, cost estimation, benchmarks, first-time manager guidance, and 1:1 scripts. The only noticeable gap is perhaps a tool for ongoing development planning or tracking progress, but the existing set covers the primary workflows effectively.

Team lead readiness test — should this engineer become a team lead?

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources