TrendIdea

get_build_prompt

Read-only

Generate a complete, builder-ready PRD and implementation guide for turning one of your ideas into a working app with a specific AI coding tool. Returns the same enriched prompt as the in-app builder workspace, tailored to the chosen builder. Supported builders: lovable, replit, bolt, v0, cursor, base44, deepagent, claude-code, windsurf, tempo, cline, devin, rork, mistral-vibe. Read-only and free; copy the output straight into the target builder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ideaId`	Yes	The idea ID to build
`language`	No	Response language	en
`builderId`	Yes	Builder ID: lovable, replit, bolt, v0, cursor, base44, deepagent, claude-code, windsurf, tempo, cline, devin, rork, mistral-vibe

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	The tool result rendered as human and AI readable text or markdown.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it confirms read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint: true), states it's free, lists supported builders, and clarifies that the output matches the in-app builder workspace. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so this additional context is useful.

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 (about 50 words), front-loaded with the main action, and includes all key information: purpose, output equivalence, supported builders, and safety/cost. No wasted or redundant words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output, supported builders, and read-only nature. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., idea must exist) or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a tool with a clear read-only profile.

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 coverage is 100% – each parameter has a description. The tool description repeats the list of supported builders already in the builderId parameter description, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters.

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 clearly states the tool generates a 'complete, builder-ready PRD and implementation guide' for turning ideas into apps with a specific AI coding tool. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'PRD and implementation guide', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_idea_summary or get_investment_memo by focusing on builder output.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context: when you want a prompt for a builder tool. It mentions supported builders and that it's read-only and free. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools that produce different outputs).

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

All TrendIdea tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function or data aspect, from idea CRUD to simulations, content generation, and team management. Despite the large number, descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, e.g., 'get_idea_summary' vs. 'get_idea_agents' vs. 'get_idea_evolution'. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., 'create_idea', 'get_competitive_density', 'toggle_favorite'). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or abbreviations. The pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

63 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the platform's broad scope (idea validation, B2B, team, simulations) justifies many, the sheer volume can overwhelm an agent. A more curated subset or grouping would improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full startup idea lifecycle: creation, validation, retrieval of various analyses, updates, deletion, sharing, simulations, B2B lead generation, team collaboration, and market intelligence. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?