getfund

Revise the brain

getfund_brain_revise

Sends notes on what the company brain should change, in the founder's words (1 to 50, each up to 1000 characters; context: the application draft a note is about), and waits up to 25 seconds while getfund turns each note into proposals (wait: false answers at once). Returns one revision per note with its status; a proposed one lists its items, each with kind (fact, answer, guideline or unclear), key, the current value, the proposed value (after) and a rationale. pending lists the revisions still being read. Each note takes one of the account's 60 daily revision units. Needs brain:write and the Autopilot plan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notes": "<notes>"
    },
    "name": "getfund_brain_revise"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wait`	No
`notes`	Yes
`locale`	No
`context`	No
`startupId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 25-second wait window, the per-note consumption of one of the account's 60 daily revision units (a hard rate limit), and the brain:write plus Autopilot plan requirements. It also describes the response shape, including the `pending` list for revisions still being processed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the input bounds, then prerequisites and return format. The sentences are dense and somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause adds usable information such as limits, statuses, and item fields.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the return structure: one revision per note, status, item fields (kind, key, current, after, rationale), and the `pending` list. Combined with the async wait semantics and quota, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, with only `locale` and `startupId` left unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it covers `notes` (1-50 items, up to 1000 characters each), `context` (the application draft a note is about), and `wait`. It says nothing about `locale` or `startupId`, so two of five parameters remain undocumented, including the one enum parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it sends notes about what the company brain should change and returns per-note revision proposals. That distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like getfund_brain_apply_revision (applies) and getfund_brain_revision (reads), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the workflow shape (notes in, proposals out, then a separate apply step) and the `wait: false` option, plus plan and permission prerequisites. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus getfund_brain_apply_revision or getfund_brain_revision, leaving the routing to inference.

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

All getfund tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?