elc-trade

Evaluate a meetup topic before you commit to it

evaluate_meetup_topic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers 'will this topic fill a room?' Scores a proposed engineering-leadership meetup title and abstract against ELC's own topic-selection criteria — the ones behind 12 meetups a year at 120+ attendees since 2019 — and returns the specific failure modes, the title formulas that would fit, and the questions only the organiser can answer.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Required. The proposed meetup or talk title.
`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."
`abstract`	No	The abstract, if one exists yet.
`audience`	No	Who it is aimed at, e.g. 'CTOs and VPs', 'first-time engineering managers'.

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / title / description

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

changedInput schema / required

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the basis of the evaluation (ELC's own topic-selection criteria), and the shape of the output (failure modes, title formulas, open questions for the organiser). It does not mention any limits or that results are opinion-based rather than deterministic, but that is a minor gap against an already-strong annotation set.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the user-facing question followed by mechanic and return values, with no wasted framing. The parenthetical about 12 meetups a year and 120+ attendees is slightly promotional but does justify the credibility of the criteria, so it largely earns its place.

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 present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still names the three return categories. The remaining gap is guidance on minimal viable inputs and how this fits alongside the sibling assessment tools, but nothing needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the mandatory context field are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters such as how a partial abstract or a missing audience affects scoring, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Scores') plus specific resource ('a proposed engineering-leadership meetup title and abstract') and an explicit frame ('will this topic fill a room?'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like assess_speaker_readiness, which concern the speaker rather than the topic.

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 title states the decision context ('before you commit to it') and the description frames the question the tool answers, so an agent knows this is a pre-commitment vetting step. However, it never names an alternative or states a when-not condition, e.g. how it differs from assess_community_launch_readiness or assess_speaker_readiness.

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.