Skip to main content
Glama

elc-partnership-builder

by io.engineeringleaders

Match a membership package to a goal and budget

match_package
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves goal + budget through ELC's own routing matrix — the same one the website uses — and returns the matched package(s) with real prices and their default line items. Map free-text answers to the closest valid id; on bad input the error lists the valid ids, re-ask rather than guessing. Next: customize_package to toggle line items, or request_offer to send it as-is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesOne of the goal ids from get_partnership_options question_1
budgetYesOne of the budget ids from get_partnership_options question_2
contextYesExplain 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). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "goal",
-  "budget"
-]New value: +[
+  "goal",
+  "budget",
+  "context"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the routing-matrix provenance, the real-price guarantee, default line-item inclusion, and the precise error behavior (listing valid ids). These details materially shape how an agent should handle failures and set expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each carrying a distinct purpose: core behavior/output, input handling and error protocol, and next-step routing. It is front-loaded with the most important resolution logic and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect (matched package(s), real prices, default line items) and how to respond to bad input. It also supplies the relationship to neighboring tools, making the tool's position in the overall flow clear without needing extra documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters and references get_partnership_options for goal and budget ids, so baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial normalization rule—map free-text answers to the closest valid id—and clarifies what happens on invalid input, which goes beyond static schema types and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation ('Resolves goal + budget'), the underlying resource ('ELC's own routing matrix'), and a concrete return value ('matched package(s) with real prices and their default line items'). It also differentiates from siblings by pointing to customize_package and request_offer as downstream actions rather than competing alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear operational guidance: map free-text answers to valid ids, and if input is bad re-ask rather than guessing. It also states which sibling to use next depending on whether line items need toggling or the offer should be sent as-is. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this tool' statement, but the context is strong enough to make routing decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All elc-partnership-builder toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct stage or action in the partnership workflow, from discovery (get_partnership_options, get_reach_options) to closing (request_offer, book_intro_call). The only slight overlap between get_started and get_more_tools is clarified by their descriptions—one lists the menu, the other returns the full tool set—so agents can reliably distinguish them. No two tools appear to perform the same function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., build_business_case, customize_package, quote_reach_combo). The verbs are action-oriented and the nouns clearly describe the target object or outcome, making the pattern highly predictable across the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a partnership builder covering membership and one-off reach options. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the sales and customization lifecycle, and the count is within the ideal range where every tool earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire partnership journey: initial qualification, package matching, customization, budget fitting, journey planning, business case generation, quoting, and closing (both offer request and booking). There are no obvious dead ends—even fallback entry points (get_started, get_more_tools) prevent stalled conversations.

Resources