Skip to main content
Glama
artem-amplemarket

Amplemarket Knowledge Base MCP Server

by artem-amplemarket
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation3/5

    The first two tools have clear distinct purposes (get all articles vs. get a specific article), but the third tool 'kb_get_collection' introduces ambiguity. Its description mentions 'Pylon knowledge base' while the server name and other tools reference 'Amplemarket knowledge base', creating confusion about whether this is part of the same system or a different one. The overlapping 'get' functionality across all three tools could cause misselection.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    The naming is inconsistent with mixed conventions. The first two tools follow a 'amplemarket_verb_noun' pattern, while the third uses 'kb_verb_noun' with a different prefix. Additionally, 'get_all_articles' uses 'all' while 'get_collection' uses 'collection' for what might be similar concepts. The inconsistent prefixes and terminology create a lack of predictable pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, this feels thin for a knowledge base server that presumably needs more operations like search, create, update, or delete. However, the tools do cover basic retrieval functionality. The count is borderline - adequate for minimal retrieval but insufficient for comprehensive knowledge base management.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a knowledge base server. There are only retrieval operations (get all articles, get specific article, get collection) with no ability to search, create, update, or delete content. The third tool's description mentioning 'Pylon knowledge base' creates additional confusion about domain boundaries. This represents significant gaps that will cause agent failures when trying to perform basic knowledge base management tasks.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an article but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if ID/slug is invalid), rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational behavior.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a retrieval tool. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., article content, metadata), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.

    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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'slug') and their mutual exclusivity. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by ID or slug', but it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

    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?

    The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a specific article from the Amplemarket knowledge base'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'amplemarket_get_all_articles' (which retrieves multiple articles) or 'kb_get_collection' (which may retrieve collections rather than individual articles).

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over 'amplemarket_get_all_articles' for single articles or 'kb_get_collection' for different resource types, nor does it discuss prerequisites like authentication or availability.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

    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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool effectively in a broader workflow.

    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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Collection ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

    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?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resources 'collection metadata and articles', making the purpose evident. It specifies the source 'Pylon knowledge base' which provides context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'amplemarket_get_all_articles' or 'amplemarket_get_article', which appear to be related but from a different domain, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over the sibling tools listed, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by stating it 'Returns complete list of article titles, IDs, and metadata' and 'No search needed - this shows everything available', which clarifies scope and output. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions, or pagination, but provides useful behavioral context.

    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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance, all in three concise sentences with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

    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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple list tool: it states purpose, output format ('titles, IDs, and metadata'), and usage context. It could mention response format details, but it's largely adequate.

    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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (as there are none), which is appropriate and doesn't detract from the high baseline.

    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: 'Get all articles from the Amplemarket knowledge base' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('articles'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'amplemarket_get_article' by explaining this tool returns metadata while the sibling returns full content.

    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?

    Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this first to browse available articles, then use amplemarket_get_article to get full content of specific articles' and 'No search needed - this shows everything available', clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives.

    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

amplemarket-pylon-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

amplemarket-pylon-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/artem-amplemarket/amplemarket-pylon-mcp'

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