Skip to main content
Glama

DDMarketer

by io.github.CodePhantom-1

Open the full dossier for a gap

get_dossier

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.

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

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.

All DDMarketer toolsInspect
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