SubmitMyStartup

Search the list

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search over the list of places to submit a startup. A place's exact name or website ("Indie Hackers", "indiehackers.com") puts it first. Asking for free ("free", "no cost", "$0") leaves out places that are paid only. Product words ("web app", "SaaS", "AI tool", "mobile app") keep only places that take that kind of product. Kind-of-place words ("launch site", "directory", "community") put places of that kind first. Other words match names, websites, regions, and the list's notes. For example "free launch sites for a web app", "AI tool directories", or "Australia". Returns up to 20 places, best match first, each with id, title, url (its row on submitmystartup.com, for citing), and a one-line summary. A query with no specific words returns the best free places. Use fetch with an id for the full record, and find_directories to shortlist by a founder's product and limits.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	What to look for, in a few words.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes	Best match first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds behavior they cannot: a hard cap of 20 results, best-match-first ordering, the fields returned (id, title, url, one-line summary), and the fallback behavior of an empty query returning best free places. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then query semantics, then return shape — a logical order with no filler sentences. It runs about ten sentences for a one-parameter tool, and the several parallel 'word type' rules could be tightened, but each sentence carries distinct ranking information.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them briefly without harm. Between the annotations (safety), the schema (query), and the description (ranking grammar, result cap, sibling routing), an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100% for the single query param, so the baseline is 3 — but the description far exceeds it by documenting the query's actual ranking grammar: exact name/website boosting, free-only filtering, product-type filtering, kind-of-place boosting, and free-text fallback, with concrete example queries. This meaning is nowhere in the schema's 'What to look for, in a few words.'

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Keyword search over the list of places to submit a startup' — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by routing full-record lookups to fetch and shortlisting to find_directories. An agent can tell exactly what this tool returns versus the other list tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the two alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'Use fetch with an id for the full record, and find_directories to shortlist by a founder's product and limits.' It also defines when a query is well-formed (specific words vs. no specific words) so the agent knows what to put in.

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

All SubmitMyStartup 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?