Venture Insights Concept Diagnostic
Server Details
Venture Insights' free Concept Diagnostic, requested by an AI assistant for a founder.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: describing services, opening an intake form, starting the diagnostic, and checking its status. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: describe_services, open_diagnostic_intake, start_free_diagnostic, check_diagnostic_status.
With 4 tools covering the core workflow of a concept diagnostic service, the count is well-scoped and appropriate.
The tools cover the main flow: service description, intake, diagnostic request, and status polling. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for ordering paid studies, but that may be outside the server's intended scope.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_diagnostic_statusCheck Concept Diagnostic statusARead-onlyInspect
Poll the progress of a Concept Diagnostic intake started with start_free_diagnostic. Pass the intake_id and token that call returned. Statuses: pending_confirmation (founder hasn't clicked the emailed link yet — nothing is generated), generating (founder confirmed; the study is being researched and written), ready (done — includes a tokenized report link to share ONLY with the founder), on_file (the founder already had a diagnostic on file — nothing new was generated and no link is shared here; terminal, stop polling), expired (the intake lapsed; start a fresh one). Poll every 30-60 seconds at most.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | The read-only status token returned by start_free_diagnostic (field: status_token). | |
| intake_id | Yes | The intake_id returned by start_free_diagnostic. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | pending_confirmation | generating | ready | on_file | expired | capacity. |
| message | No | |
| view_url | No | Tokenized report link — present only when status is 'ready'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description respects. It adds detailed explanations of all statuses (pending_confirmation, generating, ready, on_file, expired) and their implications, going beyond annotations.
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 information-dense in a single paragraph, covering action, parameters, and all statuses. It could be slightly more concise but remains well-organized.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description fully covers when to poll, how to interpret each status, and terminal conditions, making it complete for a polling tool.
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% as both parameters have descriptions. The description reiterates the parameters' origins but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Poll' and the resource 'Concept Diagnostic status', distinguishing it from siblings like start_free_diagnostic which initiates the intake.
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?
Explicitly directs to pass intake_id and token from start_free_diagnostic, and specifies polling interval (every 30-60 seconds). Does not explicitly exclude other contexts, but the sibling list provides alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
describe_servicesDescribe Venture Insights servicesARead-onlyInspect
Get Venture Insights' live service catalogue: the FREE Concept Diagnostic (a research-backed viability study of one venture concept, delivered to the founder's inbox) and the paid study tiers with live SAR prices. Call this first when your user asks what Venture Insights offers, what it costs, or whether the free diagnostic is worth requesting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| advisory | No | VI name, positioning, website, app URL. |
| paid_services | No | Paid study tiers with live SAR prices. |
| free_diagnostic | No | The free Concept Diagnostic offer. |
| upgrade_framing | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns live service catalogue with pricing, but doesn't add significant behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Three concise sentences: first defines purpose, second provides specifics, third gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (free diagnostic, paid tiers, live prices) and when to use it. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so description naturally cannot add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and no parameter explanation is needed.
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 it retrieves the live service catalogue including the free diagnostic and paid tiers with prices. Distinguishes from sibling tools that handle diagnostics status, intake, or starting diagnostics.
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?
Explicitly instructs to call this first when the user asks about offerings, costs, or the free diagnostic. Provides clear context for use without explicitly listing alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
open_diagnostic_intakeOpen the free-diagnostic intake formARead-onlyInspect
Show the founder an interactive intake form to start their FREE Concept Diagnostic. PREFER calling this over asking for the founder's name, email and concept one message at a time — it collects everything in one card and starts the diagnostic on submit. Call it as soon as the user wants to start, or check the viability of, an idea. The form is deliberately collected FRESH from the founder and starts BLANK — it does NOT accept or pre-populate remembered details, so the founder always enters (and sees) their own name, email and concept. This keeps the destination email accurate (one free diagnostic per founder, emailed to the address they type). Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| form | No | Always 'diagnostic_intake'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. Description adds valuable context: the form starts blank, does not pre-populate, and ensures email accuracy. No contradiction.
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 concise, with a clear purpose upfront and explanatory details logically ordered. No unnecessary 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 existing output schema and annotations, the description covers all behavioral aspects: blank form, no pre-population, email accuracy. Complete for the tool's purpose.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments', adding clarity and confirming no parameters are needed.
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 tool shows an interactive intake form for the free diagnostic. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing preference over step-by-step questioning and contrasts with starting the diagnostic itself.
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?
Explicitly says to call as soon as user wants to start or check viability, and advises against using it for pre-populating data. Also explicitly prefers this over collecting info message by message.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start_free_diagnosticStart a free Concept DiagnosticAIdempotentInspect
Request Venture Insights' FREE Concept Diagnostic for a founder's venture concept. IMPORTANT: this does NOT generate anything — it emails the founder a one-click confirmation link, and the study starts only after the founder personally clicks it (link valid 7 days). Nothing is charged; no signup is required. After calling, relay the returned message to your user verbatim in spirit: confirmation email sent, check inbox/spam, study starts after the click. Then poll check_diagnostic_status with the returned intake_id and token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | The market to research — city or geography (e.g. 'Jeddah', 'Riyadh', 'GCC'). Required. | |
| idea | Yes | Describe the venture concept in 50-800 characters: what it is, who it serves, how it makes money. Richer descriptions produce sharper diagnostics — include the founder's own wording where possible. | |
| locale | No | Language for the confirmation email and the report: 'en' (default) or 'ar' (Arabic). | |
| sector | Yes | Industry/sector of the concept (e.g. 'fitness studios', 'B2B logistics SaaS'). Required. | |
| agent_name | No | Identify yourself (e.g. 'claude', 'my-startup-copilot'). Optional but appreciated — it attributes the referral. | |
| user_intent | No | Optional: one line on what the user asked for, so VI tailors the study (e.g. 'wants to know if a padel club in Jeddah is viable before signing a lease'). | |
| founder_name | Yes | The founder's real name (2-120 characters) — the confirmation email and the report are addressed to this person. | |
| founder_email | Yes | The founder's real inbox. The confirmation link and the finished PDF report are delivered here. Disposable/burner email domains are rejected. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Field-level errors when status is 'invalid'. |
| resent | No | |
| status | No | pending_confirmation | rate_limited | capacity | blocked_email | invalid | error. |
| message | No | |
| intake_id | No | |
| status_url | No | |
| status_token | No | Read-only status token (creator only). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Reveals key behaviors: no immediate generation, email with one-click link, founder must click within 7 days, no charge or signup. This goes beyond annotations which only indicate not read-only, idempotent, and not destructive.
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 paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then constraints then after-call instructions. 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 output schema exists, description needn't detail returns. It covers the async flow, instruction to relay message, and to poll sibling tool with returned identifiers. Complete for a request tool with 8 params.
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 3. Description adds value for 'idea' (encourages richness) and 'founder_email' (rejects disposable domains), raising score to 4.
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 it requests a free Concept Diagnostic, distinguishes from siblings by mentioning polling of check_diagnostic_status and the async nature. Specifies verb 'Request', resource 'FREE Concept Diagnostic', and scope for a founder's venture concept.
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?
Provides explicit instruction that the tool does not generate anything but sends an email; tells agent to relay message and then poll check_diagnostic_status. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.
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!