Skip to main content
Glama

elc-trade

by io.engineeringleaders

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
titleYesThe 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so by explaining that the tool scores the topic against internal criteria and returns failure modes, fitting title formulas, and questions for the organizer. This is consistent with the annotations and adds meaningful information without over-claiming.

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, front-loaded sentence that moves from the core question to scope and deliverables efficiently. The historical credential ('12 meetups a year at 120+ attendees since 2019') adds credibility but is not strictly necessary for tool selection, preventing 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?

For a read-only evaluation tool with a rich output schema and fully described parameters, the description supplies the essential context: what is evaluated, against what criteria, and what the caller will get back. It does not explicitly mention optional inputs like abstract and audience, but those are documented in the schema, so the call path remains clear.

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 title, context, abstract, and audience are already documented in the schema. The description adds that title and abstract are the items being evaluated, which is useful, but it does not materially deepen the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers ('will this topic fill a room?') and identifies the specific resource: a proposed engineering-leadership meetup title and abstract scored against ELC's topic-selection criteria. It also names concrete outputs — failure modes, title formulas, and organizer-only questions — which make its purpose distinct from sibling tools like assess_speaker_readiness and assess_community_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 and description clearly locate usage temporally: use this before committing to a meetup topic, when the decision is about whether the topic will attract attendees. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or point to alternatives, so it stops just short of the strongest usage guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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