Skip to main content
Glama

elc-trade

by io.engineeringleaders

Should you start a meetup in your city?

assess_community_launch_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers 'should I start an engineering-leadership meetup here?' A five-question readiness check taken from ELC's own new-city launch playbook — the one actually used to open Brno, Bratislava and Kraków — returning a verdict plus the specific gaps still open.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersNoAnswers to the five readiness questions. Omit to receive the questionnaire.
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
reportYesThe full human-readable report.
sourceYesCanonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from.
verdictNoHeadline verdict, when the tool returns one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that the check is based on ELC's actual launch playbook and returns a verdict plus open gaps, so an agent knows what kind of answer to expect and that no mutation occurs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core question and outcome, with the provenance detail kept to the second sentence. The city list and 'actually' add credibility but are non-essential for tool invocation, so it is slightly above average but not maximally tight.

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 optional answers object, read-only annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description gives enough to understand what to pass and what to expect. It explains the five-question flow, the verdict-plus-gaps result, and where the check comes from; no critical usage context is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents answers as responses to the five questions and context as an analytics string. The description only adds the count of questions and the playbook provenance, not per-parameter semantics.

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?

States the tool answers a specific question — whether to start an engineering-leadership meetup in a given city — and describes a five-question readiness check returning a verdict and gaps. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_speaker_readiness and evaluate_meetup_topic.

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 question phrasing ('should I start...') makes the invocation context obvious, and the readiness-check framing implies it is for city-launch decisions rather than speaker or topic assessment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All elc-trade 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most domain tools are cleanly separated: launch readiness, speaker readiness, topic evaluation, leadership benchmarking, partnership business case, and reach purchasing each map to a distinct workflow. The only real ambiguity is between get_started and get_more_tools, which both claim greeting/liveness/menu duties, so an agent might call the wrong one for those entry-point cases.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently imperative snake_case with clear verbs and objects (assess_*, benchmark_*, build_*, buy_*, evaluate_*). get_more_tools and get_started are slightly less resource-specific, and get_started is a phrasal verb rather than a strict verb_noun action, but the overall style is uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a community/partnership decision-support server. It is within the ideal range and each core workflow has its own tool without the set feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main workflows: readiness checks, topic/speaker evaluation, leadership benchmarking, partnership business cases, and reach purchasing. It lacks operational follow-through like membership signup, event scheduling, or post-assessment action plans, but those are adjacent rather than core to the apparent purpose.

Resources