elc-trade

Assess whether a speaker is ready for the stage

assess_speaker_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers 'is this person ready to speak, and what will go wrong if they are not?' Checks a proposed speaker and talk against ELC's speaker vetting process — seven years of putting people in front of 120+ engineering leaders — and returns a readiness verdict with the specific gaps to close before the event.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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."
`talk_title`	No	Required. The proposed talk title.
`has_dry_run`	No	Whether a rehearsal is scheduled.
`prior_talks`	No	How many talks they have given.
`has_recording`	No	Whether a recording of them speaking exists. Pass it explicitly — inferring it from the background text cannot reliably read a denial like 'no recording'.
`writes_publicly`	No	Whether they publish writing — a blog, newsletter or regular posts.
`speaker_background`	No	Required. Role, seniority, and any prior speaking experience.

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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / speaker_background / description

Previous value: -"Role, seniority, and any prior speaking experience."New value: +"Required. Role, seniority, and any prior speaking experience."

changedInput schema / properties / talk_title / description

Previous value: -"The proposed talk title."New value: +"Required. The proposed talk title."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "talk_title",
-  "speaker_background",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "context"
+]

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world assessment. The description adds that the verdict is grounded in a specific vetting methodology ('seven years of putting people in front of 120+ engineering leaders'), which is useful context, but says nothing about determinism, scoring transparency, or limits of the judgement.

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 tightly structured sentences, front-loaded with the question the tool answers before describing the process and the output. The methodology clause ('seven years... 120+ engineering leaders') is credibility framing rather than operational information, which costs a point.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation, and explicit safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. Only a hint about how the verdict is graded or what 'gaps' look like 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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about how inputs like prior_talks, has_dry_run, or speaker_background influence the verdict, so it stays at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource — assessing a proposed speaker and talk — and frames the outcome as a 'readiness verdict with the specific gaps to close.' It is easy to distinguish from siblings like evaluate_meetup_topic or assess_community_launch_readiness, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for judging 'is this person ready to speak' for a proposed speaker/talk before an event. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a sibling for adjacent questions.

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.