Skip to main content
Glama

elc-trade

by io.engineeringleaders

Benchmark your manager-to-senior-IC ratio

benchmark_leadership_ratio
Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers 'what shape is my engineering org, and what should I ask about it?' Returns your manager-versus-senior-IC percentages and the resulting span (1 manager per N senior ICs), plus the question that shape usually raises. ELC's own community composition is shown alongside as context only — different denominator, so no delta and no score is computed against it.

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."
managersNoRequired. Managers and tech leads.
senior_icsNoRequired. Senior and staff ICs. Leave out junior and mid ICs on both sides.

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 / managers / description
      Previous value: -"Managers and tech leads."New value: +"Required. Managers and tech leads."
    • changedInput schema / properties / senior_ics / description
      Previous value: -"Senior and staff ICs. Leave out junior and mid ICs on both sides."New value: +"Required. Senior and staff ICs. Leave out junior and mid ICs on both sides."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "managers",
-  "senior_ics",
-  "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 mark the tool read-only and idempotent, so the description adds useful context by disclosing that ELC community data is shown only as context, uses a different denominator, and produces no delta or score against it. It also clarifies the output includes a follow-up question, which is not obvious from the schema.

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?

Three sentences, all of which earn their place: the core question, the concrete returns, and the critical caveat about ELC context. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 input schema, output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, outputs, and the main edge case around the ELC comparison. Nothing essential for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly 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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters, including the required context parameter and the distinction between managers and senior ICs. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing that the tool compares managers to senior ICs.

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 a specific purpose: benchmarking engineering org shape by computing manager-to-senior-IC ratio, returning percentages, span, and a diagnostic question. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on readiness, partnerships, or reach.

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?

The framing 'what shape is my engineering org' implies the tool is for org-shape benchmarking, but it never explicitly states when to use it or when to avoid it. The ELC caveat clarifies output interpretation rather than tool selection.

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