elc-trade

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answers`	No	Answers to the five readiness questions. Omit to receive the questionnaire.
`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

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Machine-readable payload; this is what `signature` covers.
`report`	Yes	The full human-readable report.
`source`	Yes	Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from.
`verdict`	No	Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.
`signature`	No	Detached JWS (RFC 7797) over the JCS-canonical form of `data`; verify against jwks_url.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Machine-readable payload; this is what `signature` covers.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / signature

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Detached JWS (RFC 7797) over the JCS-canonical form of `data`; verify against jwks_url.",
+  "properties": {
+    "jwks_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "jws": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signed": {
+      "const": "data",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "jws",
+    "kid",
+    "jwks_url",
+    "signed"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the output shape (verdict + specific gaps) and the provenance of the five questions (ELC's actual new-city playbook from Brno, Bratislava, Kraków), which tells the agent how authoritative the result is.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the question the tool answers, then the mechanism and return shape. The provenance clause about Brno/Bratislava/Kraków is compact and earns its place as a credibility signal for the verdict.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description complements it with a one-line result summary. The only gap is that the two-mode behavior (questionnaire vs. assessment) is left entirely to the schema rather than surfaced in the description.

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 both the answers object and the heavily-constrained context parameter are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how boolean answers map to the five questions), so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific question it answers ('should I start an engineering-leadership meetup here?') and a concrete mechanism: a five-question readiness check returning a verdict plus open gaps. The domain (engineering-leadership meetup launch) implicitly separates it from assess_speaker_readiness, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 decision context is clear — this is for evaluating whether to launch a new city chapter. However, it offers no exclusions or pointers to alternatives (e.g., assess_speaker_readiness for a different readiness question), and the 'call with no answers to get the questionnaire' mode is only discoverable from the schema.

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

All elc-trade tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.