io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade
REMOTE · WWW.ENGINEERINGLEADERS.IO · SCANNED SEP 20
Score a meetup topic, place a speaker on the right stage, price community reach. ELC data.
Available components
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. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. 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 Usability66
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 1897 tokens (~237/item across 8 items; 8 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 Management50
- Stability observed for 15 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 (88% 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 8 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 8 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
How do I install the io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade MCP server?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade is a hosted endpoint at https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade, 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-trade 'https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade'
{
"mcpServers": {
"io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade": {
"url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade"
}
}
} {
"servers": {
"io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade"
}
}
} [mcp_servers.io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade] url = "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade"
{
"$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
"mcp": {
"io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade": {
"type": "remote",
"url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade",
"enabled": true
}
}
} openclaw mcp add io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade --url 'https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade' --transport streamable-http
mcp_servers:
io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade:
url: "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade" {
"McpServers": {
"io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade": {
"Transport": "http",
"Url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade"
}
}
} assistant mcp add io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade -t streamable-http -u 'https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade'
{
"mcpServers": {
"io-engineeringleaders-elc-trade": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade"
}
}
} The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.
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.
- 19 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 17 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 13 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 11 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 9 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 8 Sept 26 0
- “assess_speaker_readiness” reworded the description of “speaker_background” cosmetic
- “assess_speaker_readiness” reworded the description of “talk_title” 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 “goal” cosmetic
- “buy_reach” reworded the description of “oneoff_ids” cosmetic
- “evaluate_meetup_topic” reworded the description of “title” cosmetic
- “get_more_tools” reworded the description of “context” cosmetic
- “assess_speaker_readiness” made “speaker_background” optional cosmetic
- “assess_speaker_readiness” made “talk_title” optional cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” made “managers” optional cosmetic
- “benchmark_leadership_ratio” made “senior_ics” optional cosmetic
- “build_partnership_business_case” made “goal” optional cosmetic
- “buy_reach” made “oneoff_ids” optional cosmetic
- “evaluate_meetup_topic” made “title” optional cosmetic
- “get_more_tools” made “context” optional cosmetic
16 cosmetic changes on this day. Switch on “Show cosmetic changes” to see them.
- 7 Sept 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.
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 20 Sept 2026 · Probed https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade
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 |
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. | present | 57355 | 8 | Verified |
| engineeringleaders.io. | present | 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/trade | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade |
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 Should you start a meetup in your city? ~194
Answers 'should I start an engineering-leadership meetup here?' A five-question readiness check taken from ELC's own new-city launch playbook — the one actually used to open Brno, Bratislava and Kraków — returning a verdict plus the specific gaps still open.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | object | – | Answers to the five readiness questions. Omit to receive the questionnaire. |
| context | string | yes | Explain 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). NEVE… |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | string | yes | The full human-readable report. |
| source | string | yes | Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from. |
| verdict | string | – | Headline verdict, when the tool returns one. |
No examples provided.
assess_speaker_readiness Assess whether a speaker is ready for the stage ~304
Answers 'is this person ready to speak, and what will go wrong if they are not?' Checks a proposed speaker and talk against ELC's speaker vetting process — seven years of putting people in front of 120+ engineering leaders — and returns a readiness verdict with the specific gaps to close before the event.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | yes | Explain 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). NEVE… |
| has_dry_run | boolean | – | Whether a rehearsal is scheduled. |
| has_recording | boolean | – | Whether a recording of them speaking exists. Pass it explicitly — inferring it from the background text cannot reliably read a denial like 'no recording'. |
| prior_talks | integer | – | How many talks they have given. |
| speaker_background | string | – | Required. Role, seniority, and any prior speaking experience. |
| talk_title | string | – | Required. The proposed talk title. |
| writes_publicly | boolean | – | Whether they publish writing — a blog, newsletter or regular posts. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | string | yes | The full human-readable report. |
| source | string | yes | Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from. |
| verdict | string | – | Headline verdict, when the tool returns one. |
No examples provided.
benchmark_leadership_ratio Benchmark your manager-to-senior-IC ratio ~234
Answers 'what shape is my engineering org, and what should I ask about it?' Returns your manager-versus-senior-IC percentages and the resulting span (1 manager per N senior ICs), plus the question that shape usually raises. ELC's own community composition is shown alongside as context only — different denominator, so no delta and no score is computed against it.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | yes | Explain 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). NEVE… |
| managers | integer | – | Required. Managers and tech leads. |
| senior_ics | integer | – | Required. Senior and staff ICs. Leave out junior and mid ICs on both sides. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | string | yes | The full human-readable report. |
| source | string | yes | Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from. |
| verdict | string | – | Headline verdict, when the tool returns one. |
No examples provided.
build_partnership_business_case Build the internal case for an ELC partnership ~409
Answers 'how do I justify a community partnership budget internally?' Returns real reach numbers, the deliverables that serve the stated goal, where a proposed budget lands on the published ladder, and a forwardable approval email. Goals: hiring, brand_awareness, product_feedback, thought_leadership, people_development (developing your own engineering leaders — mentoring, Academy seats, the peer network). Set buying_for=individual if you are a person rather than a company: ELC membership is free for engineering leaders and no business case is needed.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| approver_name | string | – | Who the approval email is addressed to. |
| 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 instead of an approval email. 'one_off'… |
| company_name | string | – | The company considering the membership. |
| context | string | yes | Explain 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). NEVE… |
| goal | string | – | Required. The primary reason. people_development covers developing your own engineering leaders (mentoring, Academy seats, the peer network) — that is the one for retention and growth, not hiring. |
| proposed_budget_eur | number | – | A proposed budget in EUR. 0 is valid and routes to the free membership layer. |
| sender_name | string | – | 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 derives from. |
| verdict | string | – | Headline verdict, when the tool returns one. |
No examples provided.
buy_reach Buy reach in the ELC community ~298
Answers 'how do we get in front of 3,300+ CEE engineering leaders, and what does it cost?' Builds a cart from ELC's nine published one-off reach items — newsletter section, dedicated newsletter, hosted meetup, podcast episode, decision-maker dinner, community survey, demo session, LinkedIn post, job listing — applies the published combo discount, and returns a decision-ready quote a human can sign.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget_eur | number | – | Optional: what you have to spend. Does not change any price — the quote will say whether the cart fits and what to drop if it does not. |
| context | string | yes | Explain 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). NEVE… |
| oneoff_ids | array | – | Required. Which one-off reach items to quote. One or more of: newsletter-section, newsletter-dedicated, meetup-hosted, podcast-episode, dinner, survey, demo-session, linkedin-post, job-listing. Combo… |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | string | yes | The full human-readable report. |
| source | string | yes | Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from. |
| verdict | string | – | Headline verdict, when the tool returns one. |
No examples provided.
evaluate_meetup_topic Evaluate a meetup topic before you commit to it ~246
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.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| abstract | string | – | The abstract, if one exists yet. |
| audience | string | – | Who it is aimed at, e.g. 'CTOs and VPs', 'first-time engineering managers'. |
| context | string | yes | Explain 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). NEVE… |
| title | string | – | Required. The proposed meetup or talk title. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | string | yes | The full human-readable report. |
| source | string | yes | Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives 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 ~73
Check for additional specialised capabilities whenever your task might benefit from them. Also the right tool for a bare greeting or a liveness test — pass it as `context` and this returns the menu instead of a dead end.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | What you are trying to do. Omit it for the menu. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
get_started Start here — what is this, and which tool answers my question? ~139
START HERE for a greeting (hi, hello), a connectivity or liveness test, 'what can you do', or any question too general to match a specific tool. Also the right call when the caller is a person rather than a company: ELC membership is free for engineering leaders and this says so. Pass their message as `context` and it routes to the tool that fits, or returns the full menu.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | string | – | Optional: the caller's message in their own words — a greeting, a liveness test, or a plain description of what they are trying to do. Anything is accepted; there is no wrong value. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | string | yes | The full human-readable report. |
| source | string | yes | Canonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer derives from. |
| verdict | string | – | Headline verdict, when the tool returns one. |
No examples provided.
What is the io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade MCP server?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade. Score a meetup topic, place a speaker on the right stage, price community reach. ELC data. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://www.engineeringleaders.io/mcp/trade).
Is the io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade MCP server safe to use?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade scores 80 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-trade MCP server expose?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade exposes 8 tools: get_more_tools, get_started, buy_reach, benchmark_leadership_ratio, assess_community_launch_readiness, and 3 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 1,897 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade MCP server still maintained?
io.engineeringleaders/elc-trade is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 20 September 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.