elc-trade

Build the internal case for an ELC partnership

build_partnership_business_case

Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers 'how do I justify a community partnership budget internally?' Returns real reach numbers, the deliverables that serve the stated goal, where a proposed budget lands on the published ladder, and a forwardable approval email. Goals: hiring, brand_awareness, product_feedback, thought_leadership, people_development (developing your own engineering leaders — mentoring, Academy seats, the peer network). Set buying_for=individual if you are a person rather than a company: ELC membership is free for engineering leaders and no business case is needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No	Required. The primary reason. people_development covers developing your own engineering leaders (mentoring, Academy seats, the peer network) — that is the one for retention and growth, not hiring.
`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."
`buying_for`	No	Who is buying. 'company' (default) builds the annual membership case. 'individual' means a person spending their own money — returns the free-membership route instead of an approval email. 'one_off' means one thing once, not a year, and routes to buy_reach.
`sender_name`	No	Who the approval email is signed by.
`company_name`	No	The company considering the membership.
`approver_name`	No	Who the approval email is addressed to.
`proposed_budget_eur`	No	A proposed budget in EUR. 0 is valid and routes to the free membership layer.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / buying_for / enum

Removed value: -[
-  "company",
-  "individual",
-  "one_off"
-]

changedInput schema / properties / goal / description

Previous value: -"The primary reason. people_development covers developing your own engineering leaders (mentoring, Academy seats, the peer network) — that is the one for retention and growth, not hiring."New value: +"Required. The primary reason. people_development covers developing your own engineering leaders (mentoring, Academy seats, the peer network) — that is the one for retention and growth, not hiring."

removedInput schema / properties / goal / enum

Removed value: -[
-  "hiring",
-  "brand_awareness",
-  "product_feedback",
-  "thought_leadership",
-  "people_development"
-]

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "goal",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "context"
+]

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the tool returns multiple artifact types including reach numbers, deliverables, a budget-ladder position, and an approval email. It also discloses that individual buyers are routed to a free-membership path, which is meaningful behavioral nuance.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the user question it answers and immediately listing concrete return values. The goal list and individual-buyer caveat earn their place without bloating the text. It is efficient while remaining information-dense.

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 output schema and fully described input parameters, the description covers the essential decision space: whether to build a case, which goals are relevant, what outputs arrive, and when no case is needed. The one_off routing lives in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 every parameter. The description adds some semantic reinforcement, especially around goal meanings and the individual-buyer path, but it does not substantially extend what the schema already says. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 exactly what the tool does: it answers 'how do I justify a community partnership budget internally?' and lists concrete outputs such as reach numbers, deliverables, budget-ladder placement, and a forwardable approval email. The goal categories are enumerated, giving the agent a clear map of what this tool covers. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid confusion with adjacent readiness and reach tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when someone needs an internal justification for a partnership budget, and explicitly says that individuals get free membership and do not need a business case. It does not spell out when to use buy_reach or other siblings, though the schema's buying_for field covers the one_off route. Overall, the guidance is actionable but could go further in naming alternatives.

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

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.