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

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

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"
+}

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it produces a forwardable approval email and returns ladder positioning rather than performing any purchase. The 'free for engineering leaders' routing rule is real behavioral context beyond structured fields. Minor gaps remain around what the approval email contains or how budget tiers are chosen.

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 core question is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the output list and then the goal enumeration. It is efficient overall, though the goal list and the individual-buyer sentence repeat material already present in the schema descriptions.

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 7 parameters, a full schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential framing an agent needs: what it produces, the goal taxonomy, and the individual-buyer escape hatch. It does not need to explain return values, and nothing critical is missing, though the one_off/buy_reach route could be surfaced more prominently.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description's goal list and buying_for=individual note largely restate schema text rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers and enumerates its four outputs (reach numbers, matching deliverables, budget-ladder position, forwardable approval email), so the resource and result are unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling buy_reach except indirectly through the buying_for=one_off note, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear triggering scenario ('justify a community partnership budget internally'), enumerates the valid goals, and states an explicit exclusion: for individuals, membership is free and no business case is needed. The routing to buy_reach for one-off purchases is only conveyed through the schema, not the prose, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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 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.