K4G Application Triage MCP Server
# Accelerator Application Triage MCP Server (Demo)
A small MCP server that turns startup/founder application triage into
something any MCP-compatible AI client (like Claude Desktop) can query in
plain language, instead of manually digging through a spreadsheet or form
tool.
This was originally built with an accelerator in the food-systems and
plant-based innovation space in mind — the kind of program that runs a
structured pipeline of applications, scoring, and mentor review each cycle.
The tools and mock data reflect that context, but the underlying pattern is
generic: **any accelerator, incubator, or grant program with an application
pipeline could point this same server at their own system of record.**
This is a **portfolio / demo build**, so the mock data here answers questions
specific to that food-systems accelerator context (sector tags like
"alt-protein" and "fermentation," food-sector countries and founders). Swap
`src/data.ts` for a different dataset and the same four tools would answer
the equivalent questions for a fintech accelerator, a climate-tech program,
or any other domain — what changes is the data, not the architecture. In a
real deployment, `src/data.ts` would be replaced with calls to whatever
system of record the organization actually uses (Airtable, Notion, a form
tool's API, etc.) — the four tools below wouldn't need to change at all.
That's the point of MCP: the AI client doesn't care what's behind the tool.
## What it can answer
- "Which alt-protein applications scored 7+ on impact?"
- "What's still sitting in David's review queue?"
- "What hasn't been picked up by any reviewer yet?"
- "Pull up the full file on K4G-2026-058, including notes."
- "Flag Root & Policy Lab for a full panel discussion — team needs
co-founder diligence."
## Tools
| Tool | What it does | Modifies data? |
|---|---|---|
| `k4g_search_applications` | Filter by text, sector, stage, or minimum impact score | No |
| `k4g_get_application` | Full detail + reviewer notes for one application | No |
| `k4g_list_pending_review` | Everything still needing a decision, optionally by reviewer | No |
| `k4g_flag_for_review` | Marks an application for panel discussion and logs why | Yes |
## Setup
```bash
npm install
npm run build
```
## Running it standalone
```bash
npm start
```
It will sit and wait for MCP messages on stdin/stdout — that's normal, it's
designed to be launched by an MCP client, not run interactively.
## Connecting to Claude Desktop
1. Open Claude Desktop's config file:
- macOS: `~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json`
- Windows: `%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json`
2. Add this server (replace the path with wherever you put this folder):
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"k4g-applications": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/k4g-applications-mcp-server/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}
```
3. Restart Claude Desktop. You should see "k4g-applications" listed under
the tools/connectors icon, and you can ask questions like the ones above
directly in chat.
## Extending this toward a real deployment
- Swap `src/data.ts` for a real API client (Airtable/Notion/etc.) — the
tool signatures in `src/index.ts` stay the same.
- Add write tools carefully: `k4g_flag_for_review` is deliberately the only
tool that changes data, and it only ever flags — it never rejects or
accepts an application outright, so a human still makes the final call.
- For a hosted/shared version (multiple reviewers, not just local use),
swap the stdio transport for Streamable HTTP — see the MCP docs at
https://modelcontextprotocol.io.
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search finds applications by criteria, get fetches full details by ID, list surfaces pending decision items, and flag modifies review status. There is minor overlap between search and list, but the descriptions and intended use cases make the boundary explicit.
All tools share the k4g_ prefix and use snake_case with a verb-first structure. k4g_flag_for_review and k4g_list_pending_review deviate slightly from the direct verb_noun pattern of the other two, but the convention is still clear and predictable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for an application triage server: search, detail view, pending queue, and flagging for discussion. Each tool covers a distinct step in the triage workflow without unnecessary bloat.
The read and flag workflows are covered, but there is no tool to mark an application as reviewed, assign a reviewer, or advance an application to the next pipeline stage. This creates a dead end where triage can only move applications into a discussion state, not out of it.