NUVC MCP Serverofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceProvides VC-grade startup intelligence, allowing founders to validate ideas and VCs to screen deals using tools like scoring, investor matching, and financial analysis.
18
MIT
Venture Insights Concept Diagnostic
Server Details
Venture Insights' free Concept Diagnostic, requested by an AI assistant for a founder.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | No | pending_confirmation | generating | ready | on_file | expired. |
| message | No | |
| view_url | No | Tokenized report link — present only when status is 'ready'. |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds detailed status transitions and polling behavior, providing full transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single well-structured paragraph with no fluff. Lists statuses with explanations and polling frequency efficiently.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers purpose, parameters, statuses, and polling behavior completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with 100% description. Description adds context linking parameters to start_free_diagnostic return values, providing extra meaning beyond schema.
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 it polls the progress of a Concept Diagnostic intake, referencing start_free_diagnostic and distinguishing from sibling tools like start_free_diagnostic, open_diagnostic_intake, and describe_services.
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 instructs to pass intake_id and token from start_free_diagnostic and lists statuses with corresponding actions. Also suggests polling frequency (every 30-60 seconds), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| advisory | No | VI name, positioning, website, app URL, and WhatsApp Business contact. |
| paid_services | No | Paid study tiers with live SAR prices. |
| free_diagnostic | No | The free Concept Diagnostic offer. |
| upgrade_framing | No |
TDQS
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the catalogue is 'live' and includes SAR prices, enriching the behavioral context without contradicting 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?
Two sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage guidance. No redundant information; each sentence 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?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description fully addresses the tool's purpose and when to use it. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by listing what the catalogue contains.
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 it returns 'Venture Insights' live service catalogue' and lists specific services (FREE Concept Diagnostic and paid tiers). It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with diagnostics (check_diagnostic_status, open_diagnostic_intake, start_free_diagnostic).
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 says 'Call this first when your user asks what Venture Insights offers, what it costs, or whether the free diagnostic is worth requesting.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and excludes alternative tools.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| form | No | Always 'diagnostic_intake'. |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds valuable context: form starts blank, does not accept/remember details, ensures email accuracy. No contradictions.
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?
Description is relatively long but front-loaded with key action and preference. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly tighter.
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?
Fully explains purpose, when to use, behavioral details, and outcome. With output schema present, no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Description adds no param details but none needed. Baseline 4 for zero-param tool.
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?
Clearly specifies verb (open/show), resource (interactive intake form), and distinguishes from siblings like start_free_diagnostic by emphasizing it's a form collection step.
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 states when to call (as soon as user wants to start or check viability) and provides a preference over step-by-step questioning. Also notes what it does NOT do (pre-populate), guiding appropriate use.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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 | Preferred language, used only as a FALLBACK: 'en' (default) or 'ar'. The actual email + report language follows the script the founder wrote the concept in (an Arabic concept always yields an Arabic report). | |
| 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. | |
| business_status | No | Optional but valuable: is the venture already set up? One of idea | pre_registration | registered_prelaunch | operating | established. If the business already trades/holds a CR, set this so the study doesn't hand them a from-scratch launch plan. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON 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). |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read operation with idempotentHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool emails a confirmation link, the study starts only after the founder clicks, and nothing is charged. No contradictions with 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?
The description is concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the key purpose and caveats. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary repetition.
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 9 parameters, 5 required, and an output schema, the description fully covers the workflow: initiating the diagnostic, relaying the confirmation, and polling for status. It provides all necessary context for correct invocation.
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%, so parameters are well-documented structurally. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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 requests a free Concept Diagnostic for a founder's venture concept. It distinguishes by explaining what it does NOT do (generate anything) and its email-based workflow, and by relating to sibling tools like check_diagnostic_status.
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 tells the agent when to use this tool (to start a diagnostic) and explicitly instructs to follow up with check_diagnostic_status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it but provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Pre-diligence AI for founders, investors, and firms — multi-agent pitch analysis and deal flow.
Venture intelligence for autonomous agents with discovery, scoring, and workspace automation.
Score, validate, and pressure-test startup ideas with AI from Claude or any MCP agent.
Free AI visibility scan for any B2B company: see how often AI engines recommend it, plus the fixes.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables comprehensive AI-powered startup investment risk analysis across 9 categories including market, product, team, financial, customer, operational, competitive, legal, and exit risks. Provides structured risk assessments, peer benchmarking, and investment recommendations using Google Gemini AI.6MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceBuyer intelligence for technical founders who sell to enterprises — ICP scoring, persona simulation, competitive positioning, deal classification, and 14 more revenue intelligence tools. 50 free queries/month.23702MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceHelps founders and teams review business workflows, identify AI opportunities, assess trust/control risks, and recommend a safe first AI-human workflow.966Cryptographic Autonomy 1.0 (Combined Work Exception)
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have distinct purposes, but open_diagnostic_intake and start_free_diagnostic overlap in initiating the diagnostic. open_diagnostic_intake presents a form and 'starts the diagnostic on submit', while start_free_diagnostic directly sends a confirmation email, making it ambiguous which to call first. Descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_diagnostic_status, describe_services, open_diagnostic_intake, start_free_diagnostic). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is a well-scoped number for the free diagnostic workflow. Each tool serves a necessary step: describe, intake, start, and poll status. No redundancy or missing steps for the core flow.
Completeness3/5
The set covers the free diagnostic flow (describe, intake, start, status) but omits any tools for the paid services mentioned in describe_services. Also, the relationship between open_diagnostic_intake and start_free_diagnostic is unclear, creating a potential gap in the flow.