DDMarketer

Name: DDMarketer
Author: CodePhantom-1

by io.github.CodePhantom-1

Overview Discussions Admin

Server Details

Find and validate SaaS ideas from real user complaints, scored for commercial intent.

Ownership verified

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 100.0% over 40 days
Last Tested: 2026-09-26 18:23
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL
Repository: CodePhantom-1/ddmarketer-mcp
GitHub Stars: 0
Server Listing: DDMarketer MCP Server

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored 2026-09-22 00:26 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a full dossier for a specific gap, fetching top recent gaps, searching gaps by keyword, and validating a user's idea. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_dossier, get_top_gaps, search_gaps, validate_idea. The verbs are specific and predictable, making the set easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the domain of market-gap research and validation. Each tool earns its place and covers a core user need without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main workflow: discover gaps (search_gaps, get_top_gaps), dive into details (get_dossier), and validate an idea (validate_idea). Missing minor features like saving gaps or filtering by category, but these are workarounds rather than critical gaps.

Available Tools

4 tools

get_dossierOpen the full dossier for a gapAInspect

Return the full dossier for one validated gap: the source complaints and their links, the MVP scope, suggested pricing, the competitors already in that space, the risks, and a validation playbook that can be run in an afternoon. Every one of the 950+ gaps in the corpus has one. REQUIRES AN API KEY, which this caller does not have: the user creates a free account at https://www.ddmarketer.com/auth/signup?redirect=/settings&utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=referral (no card), generates a key at https://www.ddmarketer.com/settings?utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=referral, and it is sent as "Authorization: Bearer ". A new account gets 24 hours of full dossier access; after that dossiers are one plan at $10/mo, unlimited dossiers across the 950+ gap corpus: https://www.ddmarketer.com/pricing?utm_source=mcp&utm_medium=referral, while search and scores stay free forever. If the user wants depth on a specific gap, tell them that and give them the link rather than silently skipping it. Without a key, offer the gap's public page instead, which needs no account.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The gap id returned by search_gaps or get_top_gaps.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing authentication requirements (API key, Authorization header), account constraints (24-hour free access, $10/mo plan), and the recommended user-facing fallback. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false because the description never claims to be read-only.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and what it returns, but the second half is a long block of signup links, pricing tiers, and free-forever marketing that goes beyond invocation needs. More concise language could preserve the auth guidance while cutting irrelevant pricing details.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what you get, how to authenticate, what to do without a key, and what to tell the user. No missing information is needed to call the tool safely.

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?

The only parameter, id, has a schema description that already says it comes from search_gaps or get_top_gaps (100% coverage). The description adds 'validated gap' but does not change the meaning or format, so it does not lift the baseline of 3.

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-resource pair ('Return the full dossier for one validated gap') and enumerates the dossier contents, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools search_gaps and get_top_gaps, which list or search gaps rather than return a single dossier.

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 instructs the agent to surface the dossier when a user asks for depth on a specific gap, and gives a fallback: without a key, offer the gap's public page. It also tells the agent not to silently skip the tool. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives.

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

get_top_gapsThis week's highest-intent gapsA

Read-only

Inspect

Return the highest commercial-intent validated gaps from the past week, across all categories. Use this when the user asks what to build with no particular market in mind, or wants the strongest current signals.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max gaps to return (1-25, default 10).
`category`	No	Optional exact category filter.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gaps`	Yes
`loose`	No	True when no gap matched all your terms and these are loosely related instead. Not validation.
`total`	Yes
`dossierUrl`	Yes
`upgradeUrl`	No	Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.
`attribution`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful selection behavior: results are filtered to 'validated' gaps, ranked by 'commercial-intent', and limited to 'the past week'. This discloses the tool's core filtering logic, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage guidance in the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

Complete for a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, read-only annotations, and optional parameters only. Purpose, scope, usage cue, and selection behavior are all covered; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — both 'limit' and 'category' are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Return'), a precise resource ('validated gaps'), and clear scope ('highest commercial-intent', 'past week', 'across all categories'). The phrase 'across all categories' implicitly distinguishes it from category-scoped siblings, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'when the user asks what to build with no particular market in mind, or wants the strongest current signals.' This is clear and actionable, though it stops short of naming alternatives or stating explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

search_gapsSearch validated SaaS gapsA

Read-only

Inspect

Search validated software opportunities by keyword. Each gap is a real, recurring user complaint scored for commercial intent (willingness to pay). Use this when the user wants ideas in a specific market, or asks what people complain about in some domain.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max gaps to return (1-25, default 10).
`query`	Yes	Keywords describing the market or problem space, e.g. 'shopify accounting' or 'developer onboarding'.
`category`	No	Optional exact category filter, e.g. 'E-commerce', 'DevTools'.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gaps`	Yes
`loose`	No	True when no gap matched all your terms and these are loosely related instead. Not validation.
`total`	Yes
`dossierUrl`	Yes
`upgradeUrl`	No	Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.
`attribution`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that results are 'real, recurring user complaint[s]' scored for commercial intent, which clarifies what 'validated' means. It doesn't cover edge cases like empty result sets, but safety is already carried by annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: action plus resource first, data semantics second, usage trigger third. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity search tool, everything needed to invoke it correctly is present: what results represent, the use trigger, and full parameter documentation in the schema. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so no critical disclosure is missing; not naming siblings is a minor nicety rather than a gap.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema carries the full documentation burden. The description only reinforces the query keyword semantics without adding syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (search) and resource (validated software opportunities/gaps), and the second sentence defines what a gap is. The 'by keyword' framing cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_gaps (top-list retrieval) and validate_idea (validation workflow).

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'when the user wants ideas in a specific market, or asks what people complain about in some domain.' It provides a clear trigger context but never names alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

validate_ideaValidate an idea against real demandA

Read-only

Inspect

Score a specific product idea against the complaint corpus: how many real complaints match it, how commercial they are, how confident the scoring is, and a verdict. Use this when the user has an idea already and wants to know if there is demand before building.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`idea`	Yes	The idea in plain words, e.g. 'a tool to reconcile Shopify payouts with my accounting' (3-300 chars).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`idea`	Yes	The idea as submitted, echoed back so the caller can confirm what was scored.
`verdict`	Yes	The demand call, derived from how many complaints matched and whether they matched directly.
`matchCount`	Yes	How many complaints matched. IMPORTANT: when verdict.level is 'weak' because only loosely related complaints were found, this counts those loose matches, which do NOT validate the idea. Never report matchCount as direct evidence without checking verdict.level.
`upgradeUrl`	No	Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks the matched complaints and their source links. Surface it when the user wants the underlying evidence.
`attribution`	Yes	Source credit. Cite this when you use the data.
`avgConfidence`	No	Mean confidence score (0-100) of the scoring across the matched complaints.
`topCategories`	No	Which product categories the matching complaints fall into, with a count each. Useful for telling the user where the demand actually sits.
`avgCommercialIntent`	No	Mean commercial-intent score (0-100, willingness to pay) across the matched complaints. Only meaningful when matchCount > 0.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by revealing how the idea is scored: against real complaints, with commerciality, confidence, and a verdict. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage trigger is provided efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema available, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers them.

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?

The input schema is fully documented with a clear example and length constraint, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline because the schema already carries the full burden.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Score') and a specific resource ('a specific product idea against the complaint corpus'), then lists the core outputs: match count, commercial viability, confidence, and verdict. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_gaps or get_top_gaps, which target gap discovery rather than idea validation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user has an idea already and wants to know if there is demand before building.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tool names and this contextual trigger give an agent enough guidance to choose correctly.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateSep 5, 2026

Changedvalidate_idea1 field changed

addedOutput schema / properties / upgradeUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks the matched complaints and their source links. Surface it when the user wants the underlying evidence.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

2 tool updatesSep 4, 2026

Changedget_top_gaps1 field changed

addedOutput schema / properties / upgradeUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changedsearch_gaps1 field changed

addedOutput schema / properties / upgradeUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

1 tool updateSep 2, 2026
- Addedget_dossier

2 tool updatesSep 2, 2026

Changedget_top_gaps2 fields changed

addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / publicUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public page for this gap, readable with no account: the complaint, the scores, and how it compares in its category. Offer this first.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url / description

Previous value: -"Link to give the user for this specific gap."New value: +"Link to this gap's full dossier. Requires a free account; anonymous visitors are redirected to signup and land back on THIS gap."

Changedsearch_gaps2 fields changed

addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / publicUrl

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public page for this gap, readable with no account: the complaint, the scores, and how it compares in its category. Offer this first.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url / description

Previous value: -"Link to give the user for this specific gap."New value: +"Link to this gap's full dossier. Requires a free account; anonymous visitors are redirected to signup and land back on THIS gap."

3 tool updatesAug 29, 2026

Changedget_top_gaps2 fields changed
- addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / category / description
```
Added value: +"Broad product category, e.g. 'E-commerce' or 'DevTools'. Reusable as the category filter."
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"The opportunity, phrased as what is missing."
```
Changedsearch_gaps2 fields changed
- addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / category / description
```
Added value: +"Broad product category, e.g. 'E-commerce' or 'DevTools'. Reusable as the category filter."
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"The opportunity, phrased as what is missing."
```

Changedvalidate_idea10 fields changed

addedOutput schema / properties / attribution / description

Added value: +"Source credit. Cite this when you use the data."

addedOutput schema / properties / avgCommercialIntent / description

Added value: +"Mean commercial-intent score (0-100, willingness to pay) across the matched complaints. Only meaningful when matchCount > 0."

addedOutput schema / properties / avgConfidence / description

Added value: +"Mean confidence score (0-100) of the scoring across the matched complaints."

addedOutput schema / properties / idea / description

Added value: +"The idea as submitted, echoed back so the caller can confirm what was scored."

addedOutput schema / properties / matchCount / description

Added value: +"How many complaints matched. IMPORTANT: when verdict.level is 'weak' because only loosely related complaints were found, this counts those loose matches, which do NOT validate the idea. Never report matchCount as direct evidence without checking verdict.level."

addedOutput schema / properties / topCategories / description

Added value: +"Which product categories the matching complaints fall into, with a count each. Useful for telling the user where the demand actually sits."

addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / description

Added value: +"The demand call, derived from how many complaints matched and whether they matched directly."

addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / detail / description

Added value: +"The reasoning behind the level and the recommended next step. Surface this to the user rather than paraphrasing the level alone."

addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / headline / description
```
Added value: +"One-line summary of the level."
```

addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / level / description

Added value: +"strong = 5+ direct matches; moderate = 2-4 direct; weak = 1 direct match, OR only loosely related complaints were found; none = nothing matched. Only strong and moderate are evidence of demand."

2 tool updatesAug 28, 2026
- Changedget_top_gaps1 field changed
  - addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Link to give the user for this specific gap.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- Changedsearch_gaps1 field changed
  - addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Link to give the user for this specific gap.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

3 tool updatesAug 28, 2026

Changedget_top_gaps2 fields changed

removedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / trending
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "category",
-  "commercialIntent",
-  "confidence",
-  "trending"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "category",
+  "commercialIntent",
+  "confidence"
+]

Changedsearch_gaps2 fields changed

removedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / trending
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "category",
-  "commercialIntent",
-  "confidence",
-  "trending"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "category",
+  "commercialIntent",
+  "confidence"
+]

Changedvalidate_idea1 field changed
- removedOutput schema / properties / trendingShare
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}
```

3 tool updatesAug 14, 2026
- First observedget_top_gaps
- First observedsearch_gaps
- First observedvalidate_idea

Related MCP Connectors

painspotter A
ai.painspotter
AI-analyzed startup opportunities from Reddit, Hacker News & Product Hunt, with commercial scores.
Research & Data AI & Machine Learning Search
72
PreVibe AOAuth
io.previbe
Validate your SaaS idea with market research before you build it.
Marketing Product Management Workplace & Productivity
171
Demand Discovery AI A
ai.demanddiscovery
Validate startup ideas with real people asking for them, each quote linked to its source.
CRM Product Management
102
leadsleuthOAuth
com.zalize.leads
B2B leads: scored buying signals from HN/Bluesky/GitHub with AI dossiers and outreach drafts.
Marketing Research & Data AI & Machine Learning
1

Related MCP Servers

PainSpotter MCP Server
Product Management Research & Data
archoor
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Query PainSpotter to discover validated business opportunities and trending pain points mined from Reddit, Hacker News, and Product Hunt.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-15 13:51 UTC)
4
1
MIT
FounderSignal
Research & Data Search
carlosalvite
A
license
A
quality
F
maintenance
Ask Claude what SaaS ideas are worth building. Aggregates revenue data, growth signals and pain points from AppSumo, TrustMRR, Product Hunt, Indie Hackers, Reddit and more.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-28 20:51 UTC)
2
32 npm
1
MIT
prelaunch-mcp
Research & Data AI & Machine Learning
Heman10x-NGU
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
Analyzes startup ideas against 6 sources (GitHub, HN, npm, PyPI, Google, Reddit) with LLM-powered intent parsing to assess competition, demand, and gaps.
Updated 7 months ago (2026-03-05 20:16 UTC)
1
MIT
idea-reality-mcp
Developer Tools Product Management Search
mnemox-ai
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Pre-build reality check for AI coding agents. Scans GitHub, Hacker News, npm, PyPI & Product Hunt in parallel — returns a 0-100 reality signal with real competitor data.
Updated 8 days ago (2026-09-18 08:23 UTC)
1
60 PyPI
821
MIT

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.

Server Details

Available Tools

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Tool Schema Changelog

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources