Skip to main content
Glama

elc-partnership-builder

by io.engineeringleaders

Book an intro meeting with Marian (the human ending)

book_intro_call
Read-onlyIdempotent

The second legitimate ending besides request_offer: a direct booking link for a 1:1 intro meeting with Marian Kamenistak, ELC's founder. Offer it whenever the visitor hesitates, wants a human, or the package needs tailoring beyond the catalog. No contact details collected here — the booking page handles everything. Pass preset_id and item_ids if a package was composed: the response then carries a paste-ready booking note, so the call starts from their numbers instead of from scratch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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."
item_idsNoOptional: the basket composed so far, if any
preset_idNoOptional: the package composed so far, if any

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'No contact details collected here — the booking page handles everything' and that passing preset_id/item_ids causes 'the response then carries a paste-ready booking note.' This clarifies the tool's side-effect-light nature without contradicting the 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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then usage conditions, then parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and a set of sibling alternatives, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how the optional parameters change the response, and what the user-facing outcome is. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds real semantic value for the optional parameters: 'Pass preset_id and item_ids if a package was composed: the response then carries a paste-ready booking note, so the call starts from their numbers instead of from scratch.' This goes beyond the schema by explaining why and how these parameters affect the outcome.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'book' a '1:1 intro meeting with Marian Kamenistak, ELC's founder.' It also positions itself as 'the second legitimate ending besides request_offer,' sharply distinguishing it from siblings and making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names the alternative ('besides request_offer') and gives concrete trigger conditions: 'whenever the visitor hesitates, wants a human, or the package needs tailoring beyond the catalog.' This gives an agent clear decision criteria for when to select this tool over siblings.

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

All elc-partnership-builder 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct funnel stages: qualify, match, customize, fit to budget, timeline, business case, offer, and booking. The only mild ambiguities are between match_package and fit_to_budget (both compose packages from budget input) and between request_offer and book_intro_call (both are conversion endpoints), though the descriptions do draw clear boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All nine tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case convention (get_partnership_options, customize_package, build_business_case, request_offer). get_more_tools is semantically a meta-tool, but it still follows the naming pattern, so there is no stylistic inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a guided sales-funnel server, and each domain tool corresponds to a meaningful workflow step. get_more_tools is a generic meta-tool that doesn't fully earn its place, which keeps this from a perfect score.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full partnership lifecycle from qualification and package matching through customization, budgeting, timeline design, business-case generation, and final offer/booking. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit package-catalog listing tool outside the matching flow and no direct handling of the individual-mentor path, but these are workaroundable or out of scope.

Resources