Skip to main content
Glama

eng-leadership-toolkit

by coach.marian

Engineering manager value & salary calculator

calculate_engineering_manager_value
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess an engineering leader's market value: score 15 leadership skills across 5 pillars (people & talent, delivery & execution, technical direction, stakeholder influence, AI leverage), weighted by current level, get a total score, a level from Team Lead to Director/VP of Engineering, and a 2026 Western-Europe gross salary estimate. Same logic as the live EM salary calculator at marian.coach. Unscored skills default to the level's baseline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
levelYesThe leader's current (or claimed) level — sets pillar weights and baseline (team-lead, em, senior-em, director)
trackNoOptional context: what kind of teams they lead. Framing only — scoring is weighted by level, identically across tracks (same as the live tool)
scoresNoOptional 0-10 score per skill. Valid keys: hiring, coaching, performance, predictable-delivery, quality-ops, process-fit, architecture-judgment, tech-strategy, build-vs-buy, product-partnership, managing-upward, org-influence, ai-team-workflows, ai-product, ai-impact. Omitted skills use the level baseline (team-lead 3, em 5, senior-em 6, director 7).
contextYesExplain 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mathNoNapkin math behind the case.
emailNoForwardable email to the manager.
levelNoSeniority level the score maps to, when the tool computes one.
reportYesThe full human-readable report.
sourceYesCanonical marian.coach page this answer is derived from.
verdictNoHeadline verdict, when the tool returns one.
evidenceNoSources the case may cite.
onePagerNoManager-facing one-pager, forwardable to finance.
salaryEurNoEstimated 2026 Western-Europe gross annual salary in EUR.
objectionsNoThe usual objections, answered.
slackShortNoSlack/Teams-length version of the ask.
totalScoreNoWeighted 0-10 score, when the tool computes one.
valueFormulaNoThe four value lines to add up (money saved, cost of delay, missed opportunity, roadmap slippage) plus the count-then-halve CFO rule.
talkingPointsNoFive talking points for the conversation.
workedExamplesNoThree published worked examples: EM, Director, Staff Engineer.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: scoring is weighted by level, unscored skills default to a level baseline, and the logic matches the live salary calculator at marian.coach.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then add scoring mechanics, output, provenance, and default behavior without repetition. Every sentence carries useful information and nothing is padded.

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 calculator tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: inputs (scores, level), weighting logic, default handling, and the exact output categories. No critical calling information 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enriches parameter meaning by explaining that skills are grouped across 5 pillars, weighted by current level, and default to a baseline when omitted. This tells the agent how level and scores interact, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Assess an engineering leader's market value' and then details what the assessment produces — a total score, a level from Team Lead to Director/VP, and a 2026 salary estimate. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_developer_value without needing to open 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly frames the target user ('engineering leader') and the tool's purpose, making the intended context obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to siblings, but the leader/developer distinction is strongly implied.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources