io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit

Measured conclusion: Deep-tested. L2 outcome: tools_ok.

Leadership-ratio benchmark, partnership ROI builder, community-launch readiness test. ELC data.

Add to your agent

Copy this into your MCP client config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "elc-toolkit": {
      "url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp",
      "transport": "streamable-http"
    }
  }
}

Measured tools (6)

• get_started read-only

  Call this for a greeting (hi, hello), a connectivity/liveness test, 'what can you do', or any message too general to match a specific tool below. Returns the full menu of real questions this server answers, each mapped to the tool name that answers it, so the next call can go straight to the right tool.

  Parameters:

  • context — string — Optional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer.

  Hints: read-only yes · destructive no · idempotent yes · open-world no

• get_more_tools read-only

  Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities, even if existing tools could work as a fallback. Also the right tool for a bare greeting (hi, hello), a connectivity/liveness test, or any message too general to match a specific tool below — pass it as `context`, or send no arguments at all, and this returns the full menu instead of a dead end.

  Parameters:

  • context — string — A description of your goal and what kind of tool would help accomplish it, OR a plain greeting/liveness ping like 'hi' or 'test'. Omit it for the menu.

  Hints: read-only yes · destructive no · idempotent yes · open-world no

• benchmark_leadership_ratio read-only

  Describes a company's manager-vs-senior-IC split — each side's percentage, the resulting span (1 manager per N senior ICs), and the question that shape usually raises. Alongside it, for context rather than as a target, ELC's own community composition (69% Manager+/Leadership, 21% Senior/Staff IC across 3,300+ CEE engineering leaders — that is who joins a leadership community, not a survey of org structures, so there is deliberately no score against it). Count the SAME population on both sides: senior people who could plausibly hold a management role (managers, tech leads, senior/staff ICs), leaving out junior/mid ICs.

  Parameters:

  • context — string — Optional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer.
  • managers — Required. Count of people in Manager+/Leadership roles
  • senior_ics — Required. Count of Senior/Staff-level individual contributors (not junior/mid)

  Hints: read-only yes · destructive no · idempotent yes · open-world no

• build_partnership_business_case read-only

  Builds the internal business case for partnering with Engineering Leaders Community: real reach numbers (3,300+ members, 120+ per meetup, 500+ at the annual conference, newsletter open rate), the deliverables that actually serve the stated goal, where a proposed budget lands on the published ladder, and a forwardable approval email. States the published price RANGE (free layer to EUR 20,000/year, EUR 32,000 with category exclusivity); for composing and pricing an exact package item by item, use the dedicated Membership Builder MCP server at https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/partnership.

  Parameters:

  • goal — string — Required. The primary reason to partner with ELC. people_development means developing your own engineering leaders through mentoring and the Academy One of: hiring, brand_awareness, product_feedback, thought_leadership, people_development.
  • context — string — Optional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer.
  • buying_for — string — Who is buying. 'company' (default) builds the annual membership case. 'individual' means a person spending their own money — returns the free-membership route, not an approval email. 'one_off' means one thing once rather than a year, and routes to the one-off menu. One of: company, individual, one_off.
  • sender_name — string — Optional: who the approval email is signed by
  • company_name — string — Optional: the company considering the membership
  • approver_name — string — Optional: who the approval email is addressed to. Supplied, it is used in the greeting; omitted, the draft opens with a plain 'Hi,' rather than a placeholder
  • proposed_budget_eur — Optional: a proposed budget figure, if one exists yet. 0 is a valid answer and routes to the free membership layer

  Hints: read-only yes · destructive no · idempotent yes · open-world no

• assess_community_launch_readiness read-only

  Answers 'should I start an engineering-leadership meetup in my city?' using ELC's own new-city launch playbook (the real doc used to launch Brno, Bratislava and Kraków) as the checklist: speaker network, promo channels, a named local operator, realistic first-event targets, and a promo budget. Call without answers to get the 5 questions; call with all 5 to get a verdict plus the specific open gaps.

  Parameters:

  • answers — object — Answers keyed by dimension id, true/false. Valid keys: speaker_network, promo_channels, local_operator, realistic_targets, promo_budget. Omit to receive the 5 questions first.
  • context — string — Optional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer.

  Hints: read-only yes · destructive no · idempotent yes · open-world no

• plan_leadership_career_path read-only

  For an engineering manager, team lead or tech lead asking 'what is my next role?', 'is the engineering manager role dead?', 'should I become a director or go back to IC?', or 'how do I stay valuable on the market in the AI era?'. Picks one of three paths from ELC meetup #43: Grow up (Director/Head of, 20+ people), Go deep (Staff/Principal AI engineer) or Go product (product builder), checks the 'dead zone' (10 or fewer people led AND under 2 hands-on hours a week; the tool decides this, report its verdict rather than inferring one), runs the four 2027 checks (product, self-management, AI, beyond engineering) and returns a month-by-month 6-month plan with a proof artifact per month. Call with no arguments to get the 7 questions; ask them one at a time, then call again with all answers.

  Parameters:

  • ai — string — Has their team shipped something it had never built before? yes / not_sure / no One of: yes, not_sure, no.
  • energy — string — What gave them energy in their best week: people_and_org, building_systems, or customers_and_product One of: people_and_org, building_systems, customers_and_product.
  • context — string — Optional. A short description of your goal and why you are calling this tool. Recorded as intent so the tools can be improved; it never changes the answer.
  • product — string — Do they know their product as well as their code? yes / not_sure / no One of: yes, not_sure, no.
  • people_led — People they lead today, direct and indirect
  • current_role — string — Optional: the person's current title, e.g. 'Engineering Manager'
  • self_management — string — Did they set this week's priorities themselves (yes) or did the calendar (no)? yes / not_sure / no One of: yes, not_sure, no.
  • beyond_engineering — string — Do they know how their feature is marketed, sold and supported? yes / not_sure / no One of: yes, not_sure, no.
  • hands_on_hours_per_week — Hours a week they build themselves: code, architecture, prototypes, agents

  Hints: read-only yes · destructive no · idempotent yes · open-world no

Publisher website Repository

Measured by MCPYP probing. Untested fields are omitted, never estimated. Listing is always free; MCPYP never proxies calls or stores user tokens.