Skip to main content
Glama

DDMarketer

by io.github.CodePhantom-1

Server Details

Find and validate SaaS ideas from real user complaints, scored for commercial intent.

Ownership verified
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
CodePhantom-1/ddmarketer-mcp
GitHub Stars
0

Available Tools

4 tools
get_dossierOpen the full dossier for a gapAInspect

Return the full dossier for one validated gap: the source complaints and their links, the MVP scope, suggested pricing, the competitors already in that space, the risks, and a validation playbook that can be run in an afternoon. Every one of the 950+ gaps in the corpus has one. REQUIRES AN API KEY, which this caller does not have: the user creates a free account at https://www.ddmarketer.com/auth/signup (no card), generates a key at https://www.ddmarketer.com/settings, and it is sent as "Authorization: Bearer ". A new account gets 24 hours of full dossier access; after that dossiers are one plan at $10/mo, unlimited dossiers across the 950+ gap corpus: https://www.ddmarketer.com/pricing, while search and scores stay free forever. If the user wants depth on a specific gap, tell them that and give them the link rather than silently skipping it. Without a key, offer the gap's public page instead, which needs no account.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe gap id returned by search_gaps or get_top_gaps.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavioral constraints beyond annotations: the API key requirement, the exact authentication mechanism, the 24-hour free window, the paid plan after that, and the graceful fallback to a public page without a key. It also explains how to handle the likely scenario where the caller lacks credentials. This is substantial added context that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

The description is longer than typical, but nearly every sentence carries necessary behavioral or usage information. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by auth requirements, pricing, and fallback instructions. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified by the critical operational details.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers what the tool returns, the authentication prerequisite, the pricing model, the fallback behavior, and how to handle the missing-key scenario. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly or route the user appropriately.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, and its description already states that it comes from search_gaps or get_top_gaps. The tool description adds that the id corresponds to a 'validated gap' and every gap has a dossier, but it does not add format or usage details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full dossier for one validated gap,' and then enumerates exactly what the dossier contains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_gaps (returns a list) and validate_idea (validates an idea), even without naming them.

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 gives an explicit condition for use: if the user wants depth on a specific gap, use this tool and provide the link rather than silently skipping it. It also gives a clear fallback when no API key exists. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when-to-use signal is strong.

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

get_top_gapsThis week's highest-intent gapsA
Read-only
Inspect

Return the highest commercial-intent validated gaps from the past week, across all categories. Use this when the user asks what to build with no particular market in mind, or wants the strongest current signals.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax gaps to return (1-25, default 10).
categoryNoOptional exact category filter.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
gapsYes
looseNoTrue when no gap matched all your terms and these are loosely related instead. Not validation.
totalYes
dossierUrlYes
upgradeUrlNoPresent only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.
attributionYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful selection behavior: results are filtered to 'validated' gaps, ranked by 'commercial-intent', and limited to 'the past week'. This discloses the tool's core filtering logic, which annotations cannot convey.

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, zero filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage guidance in the second. Every word 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?

Complete for a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, read-only annotations, and optional parameters only. Purpose, scope, usage cue, and selection behavior are all covered; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — both 'limit' and 'category' are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('validated gaps'), and clear scope ('highest commercial-intent', 'past week', 'across all categories'). The phrase 'across all categories' implicitly distinguishes it from category-scoped siblings, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'when the user asks what to build with no particular market in mind, or wants the strongest current signals.' This is clear and actionable, though it stops short of naming alternatives or stating explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

search_gapsSearch validated SaaS gapsA
Read-only
Inspect

Search validated software opportunities by keyword. Each gap is a real, recurring user complaint scored for commercial intent (willingness to pay). Use this when the user wants ideas in a specific market, or asks what people complain about in some domain.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax gaps to return (1-25, default 10).
queryYesKeywords describing the market or problem space, e.g. 'shopify accounting' or 'developer onboarding'.
categoryNoOptional exact category filter, e.g. 'E-commerce', 'DevTools'.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
gapsYes
looseNoTrue when no gap matched all your terms and these are loosely related instead. Not validation.
totalYes
dossierUrlYes
upgradeUrlNoPresent only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.
attributionYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that results are 'real, recurring user complaint[s]' scored for commercial intent, which clarifies what 'validated' means. It doesn't cover edge cases like empty result sets, but safety is already carried by 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: action plus resource first, data semantics second, usage trigger third. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a low-complexity search tool, everything needed to invoke it correctly is present: what results represent, the use trigger, and full parameter documentation in the schema. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so no critical disclosure is missing; not naming siblings is a minor nicety rather than a gap.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema carries the full documentation burden. The description only reinforces the query keyword semantics without adding syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (search) and resource (validated software opportunities/gaps), and the second sentence defines what a gap is. The 'by keyword' framing cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_gaps (top-list retrieval) and validate_idea (validation workflow).

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 states when to use it: 'when the user wants ideas in a specific market, or asks what people complain about in some domain.' It provides a clear trigger context but never names alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

validate_ideaValidate an idea against real demandA
Read-only
Inspect

Score a specific product idea against the complaint corpus: how many real complaints match it, how commercial they are, how confident the scoring is, and a verdict. Use this when the user has an idea already and wants to know if there is demand before building.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ideaYesThe idea in plain words, e.g. 'a tool to reconcile Shopify payouts with my accounting' (3-300 chars).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
ideaYesThe idea as submitted, echoed back so the caller can confirm what was scored.
verdictYesThe demand call, derived from how many complaints matched and whether they matched directly.
matchCountYesHow many complaints matched. IMPORTANT: when verdict.level is 'weak' because only loosely related complaints were found, this counts those loose matches, which do NOT validate the idea. Never report matchCount as direct evidence without checking verdict.level.
upgradeUrlNoPresent only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks the matched complaints and their source links. Surface it when the user wants the underlying evidence.
attributionYesSource credit. Cite this when you use the data.
avgConfidenceNoMean confidence score (0-100) of the scoring across the matched complaints.
topCategoriesNoWhich product categories the matching complaints fall into, with a count each. Useful for telling the user where the demand actually sits.
avgCommercialIntentNoMean commercial-intent score (0-100, willingness to pay) across the matched complaints. Only meaningful when matchCount > 0.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by revealing how the idea is scored: against real complaints, with commerciality, confidence, and a verdict. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage trigger is provided efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema available, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers them.

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?

The input schema is fully documented with a clear example and length constraint, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline because the schema already carries the full burden.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Score') and a specific resource ('a specific product idea against the complaint corpus'), then lists the core outputs: match count, commercial viability, confidence, and verdict. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_gaps or get_top_gaps, which target gap discovery rather than idea validation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user has an idea already and wants to know if there is demand before building.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tool names and this contextual trigger give an agent enough guidance to choose correctly.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Changedvalidate_idea1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / upgradeUrl
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks the matched complaints and their source links. Surface it when the user wants the underlying evidence.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. 2 tool updates
    • Changedget_top_gaps1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / upgradeUrl
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • Changedsearch_gaps1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / upgradeUrl
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the caller's plan does not include full dossiers: the page that unlocks them. Surface it when the user wants depth the teaser does not have.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. 1 tool update
    • Addedget_dossier
  4. 2 tool updates
    • Changedget_top_gaps2 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / publicUrl
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public page for this gap, readable with no account: the complaint, the scores, and how it compares in its category. Offer this first.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
      • changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url / description
        Previous value: -"Link to give the user for this specific gap."New value: +"Link to this gap's full dossier. Requires a free account; anonymous visitors are redirected to signup and land back on THIS gap."
    • Changedsearch_gaps2 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / publicUrl
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Public page for this gap, readable with no account: the complaint, the scores, and how it compares in its category. Offer this first.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
      • changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url / description
        Previous value: -"Link to give the user for this specific gap."New value: +"Link to this gap's full dossier. Requires a free account; anonymous visitors are redirected to signup and land back on THIS gap."
  5. 3 tool updates
    • Changedget_top_gaps2 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / category / description
        Added value: +"Broad product category, e.g. 'E-commerce' or 'DevTools'. Reusable as the category filter."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / title / description
        Added value: +"The opportunity, phrased as what is missing."
    • Changedsearch_gaps2 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / category / description
        Added value: +"Broad product category, e.g. 'E-commerce' or 'DevTools'. Reusable as the category filter."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / title / description
        Added value: +"The opportunity, phrased as what is missing."
    • Changedvalidate_idea10 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / attribution / description
        Added value: +"Source credit. Cite this when you use the data."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / avgCommercialIntent / description
        Added value: +"Mean commercial-intent score (0-100, willingness to pay) across the matched complaints. Only meaningful when matchCount > 0."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / avgConfidence / description
        Added value: +"Mean confidence score (0-100) of the scoring across the matched complaints."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / idea / description
        Added value: +"The idea as submitted, echoed back so the caller can confirm what was scored."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / matchCount / description
        Added value: +"How many complaints matched. IMPORTANT: when verdict.level is 'weak' because only loosely related complaints were found, this counts those loose matches, which do NOT validate the idea. Never report matchCount as direct evidence without checking verdict.level."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / topCategories / description
        Added value: +"Which product categories the matching complaints fall into, with a count each. Useful for telling the user where the demand actually sits."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / description
        Added value: +"The demand call, derived from how many complaints matched and whether they matched directly."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / detail / description
        Added value: +"The reasoning behind the level and the recommended next step. Surface this to the user rather than paraphrasing the level alone."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / headline / description
        Added value: +"One-line summary of the level."
      • addedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / level / description
        Added value: +"strong = 5+ direct matches; moderate = 2-4 direct; weak = 1 direct match, OR only loosely related complaints were found; none = nothing matched. Only strong and moderate are evidence of demand."
  6. 2 tool updates
    • Changedget_top_gaps1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Link to give the user for this specific gap.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • Changedsearch_gaps1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / url
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Link to give the user for this specific gap.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  7. 3 tool updates
    • Changedget_top_gaps2 fields changed
      • removedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / trending
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
      • changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "category",
-  "commercialIntent",
-  "confidence",
-  "trending"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "category",
+  "commercialIntent",
+  "confidence"
+]
    • Changedsearch_gaps2 fields changed
      • removedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / properties / trending
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
      • changedOutput schema / properties / gaps / items / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "category",
-  "commercialIntent",
-  "confidence",
-  "trending"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "category",
+  "commercialIntent",
+  "confidence"
+]
    • Changedvalidate_idea1 field changed
      • removedOutput schema / properties / trendingShare
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "number"
-}
  8. 3 tool updates
    • First observedget_top_gaps
    • First observedsearch_gaps
    • First observedvalidate_idea

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Login with GitHub to comment

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • FounderSignal

    carlosalvite
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    Ask Claude what SaaS ideas are worth building. Aggregates revenue data, growth signals and pain points from AppSumo, TrustMRR, Product Hunt, Indie Hackers, Reddit and more.
    2
    67
    1
    MIT
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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: browse top gaps, search gaps by keyword, retrieve a full dossier for a specific gap, and validate a new idea. The descriptions make the boundaries between list, search, detail, and evaluation obvious, so an agent should rarely misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_dossier, get_top_gaps, search_gaps, validate_idea. The verb clearly signals the action and the noun identifies the resource, making the naming predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With four tools, the server is tightly scoped for market-gap discovery and validation. Each tool covers an essential part of the workflow without redundancy, and the count is comfortably within the ideal range.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the main user journeys: finding trending opportunities, searching by market, drilling into one gap, and testing a custom idea. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the server's stated purpose.

Resources