io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit

REMOTE · WWW.ENGINEERINGLEADERS.IO · SCANNED AUG 6

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

Available components

66 66 Trust /100

Trust breakdown (6 categories)

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score →

Endpoint Security63

The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
HTTPS not yet verified: we couldn't determine whether a plaintext access path exists. View diagnostics → Unverified
HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail

Transport & Reachability100

Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass

Schema Quality & AI Usability72

AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 482 tokens (~160/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail

Stability & Change Management7

Stability observed for 2 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial

Tool Coverage100

100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass

Capabilities100

Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass

Install

Add this component to your MCP client. Where a client-specific snippet is available, pick your client below and copy it straight into your config; otherwise use the connection detail shown.

remote · www.engineeringleaders.io

Claude Codex opencode OpenClaw Hermes Other

# add to Claude Code

claude mcp add --transport http io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp

# ~/.codex/config.toml

[mcp_servers.io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit]
url = "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp"

// opencode.json

{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}

# add to OpenClaw

openclaw mcp add io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit --url https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp --transport streamable-http

# ~/.hermes/config.yaml

mcp_servers:
  io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit:
    url: "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp"

// mcp.json

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

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

Changelog

Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.

6 Aug 26 +1

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
5 Aug 26 0
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
4 Aug 26 65

First indexed and scored.

Show 2 earlier entries Hide earlier entries

Diagnostics

Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.

Captured 6 Aug 2026 · Probed https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject	Issuer	Valid from	Valid until	Key	Signature	Serial
CN=engineeringleaders.io	CN=WR1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US	21 Jul 2026	19 Oct 2026	RSA 2048	SHA256-RSA	de31ff2a0dd798940dd53158b47e5376
SANs: engineeringleaders.io, www.engineeringleaders.io
CN=WR1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA)	CN=GTS Root R1,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US	13 Dec 2023	20 Feb 2029	RSA 2048	SHA256-RSA	7fd9e2c2d2048a0474b627a26d0868a7
CN=GTS Root R1,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA)	CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE	19 Jun 2020	28 Jan 2028	RSA 4096	SHA256-RSA	77bd0d6cdb36f91aea210fc4f058d30d

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of www.engineeringleaders.io. — Not signed

Zone	DS	Keys	Algorithms	Outcome
.	trust_anchor	20326, 38696	8, 8	Verified
io.	present	57355	8	Verified
engineeringleaders.io.	absent			Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation

Authentication No authorisation required

The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.

Result	No authorisation required
HTTP status	200

Transports 2 probes

Transport	URL	Outcome	Status	Location
streamable-http	https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp	Verified	200
http (plaintext)	http://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp	Inconclusive	406

MCP tools · 3 exposed · ~482 tokens

The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability.

Tool Tokens

assess_community_launch_readiness Community launch readiness test — should you start a local meetup? ~147

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.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
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.

Name	Type	Req	Description
report	string	yes	The full human-readable report.
source	string	yes	Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
verdict	string	–	Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.

No examples provided.

benchmark_leadership_ratio Engineering org leadership-ratio benchmark ~162

Compares a company's manager-vs-senior-IC split against the ELC community's own composition (69% Manager+/Leadership, 21% Senior/Staff IC, computed from 3,100+ CEE engineering leaders). Both counts are for the SAME population — senior people who could plausibly hold a management role (managers, tech leads, senior/staff ICs); leave out junior/mid ICs on both sides so the comparison is apples to apples. Returns each side's percentage, the delta from the peer baseline, and a verdict.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
managers	number	yes	Count of people in Manager+/Leadership roles
senior_ics	number	yes	Count of Senior/Staff-level individual contributors (not junior/mid)

Name	Type	Req	Description
report	string	yes	The full human-readable report.
source	string	yes	Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
verdict	string	–	Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.

No examples provided.

build_partnership_business_case ELC partnership business-case builder ~173

Builds the internal business case for sponsoring/partnering with Engineering Leaders Community: real reach numbers (3,100+ members, 120+ per meetup, 500+ at the annual conference, newsletter open rate), goal-specific framing (hiring, brand awareness, product feedback, thought leadership), and a forwardable approval email. Does NOT state ELC's own pricing — the site itself publishes no per-tier rate card ('book a call for a real quote'), so this tool never invents one either.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
company_name	string	–	Optional: the company considering the partnership
goal	string	yes	The primary reason to partner with ELC
proposed_budget_eur	number	–	Optional: a proposed budget figure, if one exists yet, to frame the per-outcome bar against

Name	Type	Req	Description
report	string	yes	The full human-readable report.
source	string	yes	Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
verdict	string	–	Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.

No examples provided.

On this page

Handy links

Scoring key

80+ high trust
60–79 medium
below 60 low

How we score

Score history · last 30 days

4 Aug 6 Aug