Venture Insights Concept Diagnostic

Start a free Concept Diagnostic

start_free_diagnostic

Idempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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

TableJSON 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.

All Venture Insights Concept Diagnostic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources

Need Help?