F4 Raise

Email the report link

email_report_link

DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when a founder asks to have their F4 Raise report link emailed to them, giving their own address and the code from a find_vc_firms result. Emails the founder one message with a personal link that opens F4's free report form with the description already filled in. It needs the code at the end of the report link in a find_vc_firms result, and sends at most one email per code. F4 stores the email address with the search for 13 months and may email the founder about their raise. Every email includes a link to stop future emails. Each address has daily and weekly limits. The answer shows a masked address.

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "email_report_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The code at the end of the report link in a find_vc_firms result.
`email`	Yes	The founder's email address, as the founder gave it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issues`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`maskedEmail`	No
`retryAfterSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the one-email-per-code cap, the 13-month retention of the address, possible marketing follow-up, a per-email unsubscribe link, per-address daily and weekly limits, and that the response masks the address. These details explain the destructiveHint/openWorldHint profile rather than contradicting it, and no contradiction exists.

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?

The trigger condition is correctly front-loaded and the behavioral facts are ordered sensibly, but the code's provenance ('the code at the end of the report link in a find_vc_firms result') is stated twice, and that sentence fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes the masked address. Retention period, rate limits, consent/unsubscribe, and the idempotency cap cover everything an agent needs before calling this outbound-email tool.

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% and both parameter descriptions are already fully documented in the schema; the description's phrasing ('the code at the end of the report link', 'the founder's email address, as the founder gave it') restates the schema almost verbatim. Baseline 3 applies, with no added syntax, format, or validation guidance.

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?

A specific verb and resource (email the F4 Raise report link), with the trigger condition stated up front and the required provenance of the code named: 'the code from a find_vc_firms result.' An agent can distinguish this from find_vc_firms and get_vc_firm_details without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicit about when to call ('when a founder asks to have their F4 Raise report link emailed to them') and where the code must come from (a find_vc_firms result). It does not name an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All F4 Raise 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?