Skip to main content
Glama

elc-trade

by io.engineeringleaders

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

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."
talk_titleNoRequired. The proposed talk title.
has_dry_runNoWhether a rehearsal is scheduled.
prior_talksNoHow many talks they have given.
has_recordingNoWhether a recording of them speaking exists. Pass it explicitly — inferring it from the background text cannot reliably read a denial like 'no recording'.
writes_publiclyNoWhether they publish writing — a blog, newsletter or regular posts.
speaker_backgroundNoRequired. Role, seniority, and any prior speaking experience.

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds that the tool draws on seven years of ELC vetting experience and returns a readiness verdict with specific gaps to close, which is useful behavioral detail not present in 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the core question and deliverable. The 'seven years...' credibility phrase is slightly extra but not wasteful, and the structure gives the agent the outcome before the method.

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 full schema parameter descriptions, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain return values or side effects. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and decision output, though it does not resolve the inconsistency where talk_title and speaker_background are labeled 'Required' in prose but are not in the schema's required array.

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%, with all seven parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level explanation, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter guidance.

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 the exact question the tool answers — 'is this person ready to speak, and what will go wrong if they are not?' — and names the specific resource (a proposed speaker and talk) and vetting process. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like assess_community_launch_readiness by focusing on speaker readiness against ELC's process.

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 description makes the intended use case clear: vetting a speaker and talk before an event. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the strong context around ELC's speaker process gives an agent enough situational guidance.

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