Materio MCP Server

Official

by Materioa

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct, but get_resource and search could be confused as both involve searching, though one is metadata keyword search and the other is semantic content search. list_resources and subject_overview also overlap slightly.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_resources, fetch_pdf). Only 'search' is a single verb, but it's a common exception and still fits the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools cover the core functionality of browsing, searching, retrieving, and sharing PDF resources without being too few or too many. The scope is well-scoped for an educational document library.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides a complete workflow: discover resources (list_resources, subject_overview), search (search, get_resource), retrieve full content (fetch_pdf), and share (share_link). No obvious gaps for a read-only library.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds that it searches PDFs, which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 well-structured with a clear intro, Args/Returns sections, and examples. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in the Args section (repeats schema).
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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (list with semester, subject, category, topic name, CDN URL). Examples cover various use cases. No missing information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the scope of search (fields), providing usage examples, and clarifying that multiple words narrow results. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
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 it searches across all Materio educational PDFs by keyword, specifying what it searches (semester numbers, subject names, categories, topics). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_resources' (listing without search) and 'fetch_pdf' (direct file retrieval).
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 implies usage via examples but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, and it lacks exclusions or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the return format (markdown listing organized by semester > subject > category > topics). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations cover.
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?
Description is well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose. A bit lengthy with examples, but remains focused and useful.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what the output looks like. Examples further ensure completeness.
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% and the description provides examples of usage for the 'semester' parameter (e.g., '3'), which adds practical guidance but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'List all available educational resources' and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resource' and 'fetch_pdf' by noting it's for discovery before fetching. The verb is specific and the resource scope is defined.
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?
Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to discover what PDFs are available before fetching a specific one' and includes examples like filtering by semester. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'search'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns PDF URLs and is a read operation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.
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: a broad purpose sentence, a detail sentence, structured Args/Returns sections, and three examples. No superfluous information; front-loaded with the key verb 'overview'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple overview tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (categories, topics, PDF URLs) and provides examples. Could mention potential size of results, but overall sufficient.
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% with clear descriptions. The description repeats parameter details and adds examples, which provide extra context but do not significantly extend beyond the schema.
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 provides a complete overview of all resources for a subject, listing categories and topics. The verb 'overview' and mention of specific resource types distinguish it from sibling tools like search or get_resource.
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 says it's 'useful for understanding the full scope before diving into specific topics,' which implies when to use. It does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, but the context with siblings provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns a secure URL that opens in the Materio viewer, and that it accepts alternative parameter sets. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The behavioral details are present but not comprehensive.
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 and well-structured: first sentence states the core purpose, second provides use-case context, and third explains input options. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a clear return type ('secure URL') with an example format. It covers the main inputs and usage scenario. However, it lacks details on link expiration, response structure, or error handling, though these are not critical for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of the 'url' parameter versus the 'semester, subject, topic' group, which is not evident from the schema alone.
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's purpose: generating a professional masked share link for a Materio PDF. It specifies the output is a secure URL and gives an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_pdf and get_resource, which serve different functions.
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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when finalizing a study session or providing resources to the user.' It also explains the two input modes (url or semester/subject/topic). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by noting the PDF is downloaded from the CDN and text extracted, and that the returned text may be long. No contradictions.
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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, args, returns, and examples. The 'IMPORTANT' section adds a bit of extra instruction on how to use the content, which might be unnecessary but doesn't harm clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main workflow: how to specify inputs, what is returned (full text, potentially long), and includes examples. It lacks explicit error handling or confirmation of success, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying conditional requirements: 'Required if url is not provided' for semester, subject, topic. It also reinforces that url takes priority, which is already in schema but emphasized.
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's purpose: 'Fetch and read the full text content of a Materio PDF.' It specifies the verb (fetch/read), resource (PDF), and distinguishes from siblings like search and get_resource by noting it retrieves actual study material after searching.
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 says 'Use this after searching/browsing to retrieve the actual study material,' providing context. It also explains the two input methods (direct URL or semester+subject+topic) and that URL takes priority. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: it uses Google Gemini for embedding, returns ranked text chunks with similarity scores, source page references, and direct PDF links. It explains it's semantic search against a vector database. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true).
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 appropriately sized, front-loading the priority and purpose. It is structured with clear sections: priority statement, technology, usage guidance, args description, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and no information is redundant.
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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: ranked text chunks with similarity %, subject, topic, page range, and PDF link. It also provides usage context and examples, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra value with usage tips like 'Be precise' for query and provides default and max values for limit. It also gives concrete examples that illustrate parameter combinations. This goes beyond the schema's baseline but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's already adequate 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 title 'Semantic Vector Search' and description clearly state the tool performs semantic search over a pre-indexed document library. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_pdf by explicitly instructing to call this first. The verb 'search' and resource 'document library' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Always call this first before attempting fetch_pdf', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. its sibling. Examples show different usage scenarios, and the description implies this is the primary search tool, not for listing resources or getting single items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Materioa/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Materioa/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Materioa/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Materioa/mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Materioa/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server