Fund Momentum
Server Details
920+ active VC funds with live investor signals
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- schneidavie/fundmomentum
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: fund profile, investor signals, GP profiles, startup matching, and fund search. No overlap in functionality, ensuring clear agent selection.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., get_fund, match_startup). Naming is predictable and uniform across the set.
With 5 tools covering fund details, signals, GP profiles, matching, and search, the count is appropriate for the server's purpose and not excessive or insufficient.
The server covers key operations for fund discovery and matching, though it lacks a direct 'list all funds' tool (search can approximate). Minor gap but overall comprehensive.
Available Tools
5 toolsget_fundBInspect
Get detailed profile of a specific fund by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug identifier of the fund |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, auth requirements, or rate limits. The word 'Get' is not sufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 9 words, directly to the point. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and one required param, the description is minimally complete. It does not explain what 'detailed profile' includes or confirm it returns full fund data. Adequate but leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with 'slug' described as 'The slug identifier of the fund'. Description adds 'by slug' but no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'detailed profile of a specific fund', and method 'by slug'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fund_signals (signals) and search_funds (search).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_funds). Does not specify prerequisites (having a slug) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_fund_signalsAInspect
Get comprehensive investor signals for a fund including GP thesis, bullish/contrarian signals, and deployment status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The slug identifier of the fund |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies a read operation ('Get'). Lists included signal types but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure beyond the listed types.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant words. Front-loads the purpose and includes specific details about signal types.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description partially lists return contents but lacks structure details. For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, it is adequate but could be more informative about output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'slug'. Description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond 'slug identifier of the fund'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'investor signals for a fund', listing specific signal types (GP thesis, bullish/contrarian signals, deployment status). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fund which likely returns basic fund info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like get_fund or get_gp_profile. Description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate. Agent must infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_gp_profileCInspect
Get General Partner profiles for a fund.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gp_name | No | Optional GP name to filter by | |
| fund_slug | Yes | The slug identifier of the fund |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states 'Get' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. Lacks behavioral details beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and two parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a GP profile contains, the return format, or any constraints. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; schema already defines fund_slug and gp_name with descriptions. No additional context provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'General Partner profiles' with context 'for a fund'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fund (fund details) and get_fund_signals (signals) by focusing on GP profiles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not explain that it requires a fund_slug and can optionally filter by gp_name. Missing context about prerequisite knowledge or when another tool might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_startupBInspect
AI-powered fund matching based on startup description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | No | Funding stage | |
| country | No | Country | |
| description | Yes | Startup description (max 500 chars) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'AI-powered' without explaining the matching logic, limitations, or whether the operation is read-only. No info on auth requirements, rate limits, or data handling is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that effectively communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action, but could be more efficient by avoiding the generic 'AI-powered' preface and including more specific details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks necessary context. It does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of funds ranked by score), how optional parameters like stage and country affect matching, or any constraints on input format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., stage enum, country free text, description with max chars). The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'matching' and the resource 'startup' with 'fund', and the phrase 'based on startup description' specifies the input. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_fund', 'get_gp_profile', and 'search_funds', which are about retrieving specific fund details or searching by filters rather than matching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding funds given a startup description, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_funds' (which may allow more structured filtering). No 'when not to use' or prerequisite context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_fundsCInspect
Search for venture capital funds by stage, country, and industry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (max 20) | |
| stage | No | Funding stage focus | |
| country | No | Country (e.g. 'United States', 'United Kingdom') | |
| industry | No | Industry focus |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and brief description. Does not disclose behavior such as default sorting, pagination, or that all parameters are optional. For a search tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise single sentence, but at the expense of completeness. Could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not explain return type (list) or any default behavior. Incomplete for a search tool with 4 filter parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are described. Description adds no extra meaning beyond listing filter fields. Does not clarify parameter interaction (e.g., AND/OR logic).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool searches for venture capital funds and lists filter dimensions. However, it could better distinguish from siblings like get_fund by specifying it returns a list, not a single fund.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_fund, get_gp_profile, etc. No when-not or usage context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!