FundingTracker

Request a funder directory listing

request_funder_listing

Ask FundingTracker to list a funding company (direct funder, ISO/broker or other) in its public funder directory, or to update the facts of a company already listed: max deal, payment schedules, whether it works with ISO brokers, and states served. No sign-in needed; use it only for a company the user represents. FundingTracker emails a confirmation link to contact_email, which should be at the company website's domain (another domain gets a closer review). Nothing is published until that link is opened and FundingTracker approves the listing. Returns the request status, e.g. waiting for email confirmation. One open request per website; rate-limited.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "website": "<website>",
      "contact_name": "<contact_name>",
      "contact_email": "<contact_email>"
    },
    "name": "request_funder_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	'direct_funder' (funds deals from its own capital), 'broker' (ISO/broker) or 'other'.
`states`	No	U.S. states served: 'all' for nationwide, or two-letter codes like ['FL', 'GA', 'TX'].
`company`	Yes	Company name as it should appear in the directory, e.g. 'Biz Capital Miami'.
`website`	Yes	Company website, e.g. 'bizcapitalmiami.com'.
`max_deal`	No	Largest deal funded, in USD, e.g. 250000.
`payments`	No	Payment schedules offered: any of 'daily', 'weekly', 'monthly'.
`contact_name`	Yes	Name of the person requesting the listing.
`contact_email`	Yes	Work email at the company's own domain. A confirmation link is sent here; an email at another domain gets a closer review.
`works_with_isos`	No	Whether the company works with ISO brokers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: confirmation email workflow, domain-based review, publication only after link opening and approval, return status, and rate limits. This fully covers the mutation's side effects and prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisites, workflow, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the request workflow, approval process, return status, constraints, and authentication expectations. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about contact_email domain matching and the confirmation flow, but it does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: request FundingTracker to list or update a company in its public funder directory. It clearly distinguishes this action from sibling tools such as get_funder or search_funders, which retrieve rather than request listings.

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?

It provides explicit usage constraints: no sign-in needed, use only for a company the user represents, one open request per website, and rate-limiting. It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling tool is a direct alternative for submitting a listing request.

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

All FundingTracker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?