Skip to main content
Glama

elc-toolkit

by io.engineeringleaders

ELC membership business-case builder

build_partnership_business_case
Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds the internal business case for partnering with Engineering Leaders Community: real reach numbers (3,100+ members, 120+ per meetup, 500+ at the annual conference, newsletter open rate), goal-specific framing (hiring, brand awareness, product feedback, thought leadership), and a forwardable approval email. States the published price RANGE (free layer to EUR 20,000/year, EUR 32,000 with category exclusivity); for composing and pricing an exact package item by item, use the dedicated Membership Builder MCP server at https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/partnership — inquiries sent through it carry a 16% AI-channel discount.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesThe primary reason to partner with ELC
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."
company_nameNoOptional: the company considering the membership
proposed_budget_eurNoOptional: a proposed budget figure, if one exists yet, to frame the per-outcome bar against

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reportYesThe full human-readable report.
sourceYesCanonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
verdictNoHeadline verdict, when the tool returns one.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by clarifying that it produces a forwardable approval email and stating the price range and discount, which helps the agent set expectations 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 a single, information-dense paragraph with no filler. It leads with the core function, then lists key inputs and outcomes, and ends with a concrete pointer to the alternative tool, every sentence earning its place.

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 the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even provides the external alternative location and a pricing caveat, leaving little ambiguity.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by mapping the goal enum to specific framings (hiring, brand awareness, product feedback, thought leadership) and by mentioning pricing context that helps frame proposed_budget_eur.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Builds the internal business case for partnering with Engineering Leaders Community.' It enumerates concrete outputs (reach numbers, goal-specific framing, approval email), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'for composing and pricing an exact package item by item, use the dedicated Membership Builder MCP server.' This gives the agent a clear routing decision without requiring inference.

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

All elc-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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a completely different task: launching a local meetup, benchmarking leadership ratios, and building a partnership business case. There is no conceptual overlap, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: assess_community_launch_readiness, benchmark_leadership_ratio, build_partnership_business_case. This is perfectly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core high-value actions a user would want from an ELC toolkit. Each tool is meaningful and earns its place; the count never feels padded or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The three tools cover the main engagement areas: start a chapter, benchmark your organization, and fund/partner with ELC. The only minor gaps are things like event lookup or direct membership application, but those seem intentionally excluded and the referenced partnership server fills one gap.

Resources