# io.engineeringleaders/elc-toolkit (remote · www.engineeringleaders.io)

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

- Trust score: 66/100 (medium)
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-08-06

## Components

- remote · `www.engineeringleaders.io`: 66/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit/www.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit/www)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.0`

## Trust breakdown

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. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-08-06.

- **Endpoint Security**: 63/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one.
  - HTTPS not yet verified: we couldn't determine whether a plaintext access path exists.
  - HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 72/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - 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.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 7/100
  - Stability observed for 2 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 100/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 100% of tool parameters carry a description.
  - Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.
- **Capabilities**: 100/100
  - Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### Claude

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

### Codex

```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
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

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

### Hermes

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

### Other

```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 recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-08-06 (score 66, +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.

### 2026-08-05 (score 65, 0)

- [functional improvement] Stability: unverified → 0.03

### 2026-08-04 (score 65)

First indexed and scored.

## MCP tools (3)

### `benchmark_leadership_ratio` (~162 tokens)

Engineering org leadership-ratio benchmark

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 parameters:

- `managers` (number, required): Count of people in Manager+/Leadership roles
- `senior_ics` (number, required): Count of Senior/Staff-level individual contributors (not junior/mid)

Output parameters:

- `report` (string): The full human-readable report.
- `source` (string): Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
- `verdict` (string): Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.

### `build_partnership_business_case` (~173 tokens)

ELC partnership business-case builder

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 parameters:

- `company_name` (string): Optional: the company considering the partnership
- `goal` (string, required): 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

Output parameters:

- `report` (string): The full human-readable report.
- `source` (string): Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
- `verdict` (string): Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.

### `assess_community_launch_readiness` (~147 tokens)

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

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 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.

Output parameters:

- `report` (string): The full human-readable report.
- `source` (string): Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
- `verdict` (string): Headline verdict, when the tool returns one.

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit/www#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-08-06: 66
- 2026-08-05: 65
- 2026-08-04: 65

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp
- Repository: https://github.com/marian-kamenistak/elc-toolkit
- Website: https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit/www.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit/www.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/io-engineeringleaders-elc-toolkit/www