Skip to main content
Glama

elc-trade

by io.engineeringleaders
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoRequired. The proposed meetup or talk title.
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."
abstractNoThe abstract, if one exists yet.
audienceNoWho it is aimed at, e.g. 'CTOs and VPs', 'first-time engineering managers'.

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.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already provided, the description adds useful behavioral context: it scores against ELC's own criteria, returns failure modes and title formulas, and flags questions only the organizer can answer. No contradiction with 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 a single focused sentence with a strong front-loaded question. The historical statistics ('12 meetups a year at 120+ attendees since 2019') add credibility but are somewhat nonessential, keeping it just below a perfect score.

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?

Given a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete enough: it states the inputs, the evaluation approach, and the kinds of outputs. It does not need to restate return values because the output schema covers them, and the missing detail about handling missing abstracts is minor.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond naming title and abstract as the scored inputs; it does not deepen the semantics of audience or context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scores') and resource ('a proposed engineering-leadership meetup title and abstract'), and answers a concrete question: 'will this topic fill a room?'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling readiness-assessment tools by focusing on meetup topic viability rather than speaker or launch readiness.

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 'before you commit to it' and the description's focus on 'proposed' topics give a clear context: use it during topic evaluation, before finalizing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the meetup-topic scope is clear enough to route correct usage.

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
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.

Resources