io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit
REMOTE · WWW.ENGINEERINGLEADERS.IO
Leadership-ratio benchmark, partnership ROI builder, community-launch readiness test. ELC data.
Available components
Last scanned (11 hours ago)
Scores higher than 94% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
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 → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security83
- 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. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability64
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1566 tokens (~261/item across 6 items; 6 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 Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
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 (83% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 6 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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.
- 15 Oct 26 0
- Schema quality: 214 → 261 ▼ functional
- New tool “plan_leadership_career_path” functional
- 6 Oct 26 −1
- Tool “build_partnership_business_case” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 12 Sept 26 0
- Stability: fail → pass ▲ security
- Schema quality: 270 → 217 ▲ functional
- “assess_community_launch_readiness” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” reworded the description of “managers” cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” reworded the description of “senior_ics” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” reworded the description of “buying_for” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” reworded the description of “goal” cosmetic
- “get_started” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- “assess_community_launch_readiness” made “context” optional cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” made “context” optional cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” made “managers” optional cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” made “senior_ics” optional cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” made “context” optional cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” made “goal” optional cosmetic
- “get_started” made “context” optional cosmetic
- 10 Sept 26 0
- Tool “get_more_tools” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “get_more_tools” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- “get_more_tools” made “context” optional cosmetic
- 6 Sept 26 0
- DNSSEC: fail → pass ▲ security
- Tool “benchmark_leadership_ratio” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “build_partnership_business_case” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: 227 → 267 ▼ functional
- “build_partnership_business_case” added an optional parameter “approver_name” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” added an optional parameter “buying_for” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” added an optional parameter “sender_name” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” reworded the description of “goal” cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” reworded the description of “proposed_budget_eur” cosmetic
- 5 Sept 26 0
- Tool “benchmark_leadership_ratio” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “build_partnership_business_case” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “get_more_tools” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “get_more_tools” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- Tool “get_more_tools” changed its title: More tools? Check here first — also answers a plain hello/liveness ping cosmetic
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 5 Nov 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=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 7 Sept 2026 | 6 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5a1a34b1c91afb0ca749b748da78a662265 |
| SANs: *.engineeringleaders.io, engineeringleaders.io | ||||||
| CN=YE2,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 4df3b15dd6c0784c507cd37b58e6f115 |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of www.engineeringleaders.io. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| io. | DS published | 38690 | 8 | Verified |
| engineeringleaders.io. | DS published | 2371 | 13 | Verified |
| www.engineeringleaders.io. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
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 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=15552000; includeSubDomains |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp |
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. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
assess_community_launch_readiness Community launch readiness test — should you start a local meetup? ~185
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.
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 ~231
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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) |
| 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 membership business-case builder ~413
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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… |
| company_name | string | – | Optional: the company considering the membership |
| 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. |
| 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,… |
| proposed_budget_eur | – | – | Optional: a proposed budget figure, if one exists yet. 0 is a valid answer and routes to the free membership layer |
| sender_name | string | – | Optional: who the approval email is signed by |
| 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.
get_more_tools More tools? Check here first — also answers a plain hello/liveness ping ~131
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_started Start here — what can this MCP server do? ~113
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 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.
plan_leadership_career_path Engineering leader career path + 6-month plan (the EM role is changing) ~493
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ai | string | – | Has their team shipped something it had never built before? 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. |
| 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. |
| current_role | string | – | Optional: the person's current title, e.g. 'Engineering Manager' |
| 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. |
| hands_on_hours_per_week | – | – | Hours a week they build themselves: code, architecture, prototypes, agents |
| people_led | – | – | People they lead today, direct and indirect |
| product | string | – | Do they know their product as well as their code? yes / not_sure / no One of: yes, not_sure, no. |
| 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. |
| 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.
How do I install the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit is a hosted endpoint at https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · www.engineeringleaders.io
claude mcp add --transport http io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit 'https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp'
What is the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit. Leadership-ratio benchmark, partnership ROI builder, community-launch readiness test. ELC data. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp).
Is the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server safe to use?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit scores 87 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server expose?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit exposes 6 tools: get_started, get_more_tools, benchmark_leadership_ratio, build_partnership_business_case, assess_community_launch_readiness, plan_leadership_career_path. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,566 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server still maintained?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What did VerifyMCP test on the io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.