Skip to main content
Glama
mambalabsdev

mcp-gtm-suite

by mambalabsdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Detect GTM Tech Stack

detect_gtm_tech_stack
Idempotent

Identify which CRM, sequencer, and marketing automation tools a company uses from its public website, returning per-tool boolean signals as a flat, Clay-ready JSON row.

Instructions

Detect which GTM tools a company uses from its public website. Returns CRM, sequencer, and marketing automation signals with per-tool boolean flags as a flat, Clay-ready JSON row. Reads public data and writes nothing; requires an APIFY_TOKEN and consumes Apify credits per call.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoDeprecated alias for domain, accepted by the actor as a full company website URL. Prefer domain.
domainNoBare company domain, e.g. stripe.com. Supply this, company_domain or url.
skipCacheNoBy default a clean detection is cached for 7 days and reused. Set true to force a fresh detection.
technologiesNoReport only these tools. Omit to report every detectable tool. Only tools with a client side fingerprint are selectable. Detection is unchanged, so filtering costs nothing extra.
company_domainNoDeprecated alias for domain, accepted by the actor for older callers. Prefer domain.
max_charge_usdNoOptional spending cap for this call, in USD, passed to the actor as max_charge_usd. The run stops before any charge that would take it past this amount and keeps every row already charged. Leave empty to rely only on the maximum charge per run set on your Apify account.
crawl_additional_pagesNoCrawl up to 2 extra pages for better coverage. Defaults to true when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_charge_usd
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional spending cap for this call, in USD, passed to the actor as max_charge_usd. The run stops before any charge that would take it past this amount and keeps every row already charged. Leave empty to rely only on the maximum charge per run set on your Apify account.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / company_domain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Deprecated alias for domain, accepted by the actor for older callers. Prefer domain.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Bare company domain, e.g. stripe.com"New value: +"Bare company domain, e.g. stripe.com. Supply this, company_domain or url."
    • addedInput schema / properties / skipCache
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "By default a clean detection is cached for 7 days and reused. Set true to force a fresh detection.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / technologies
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Report only these tools. Omit to report every detectable tool. Only tools with a client side fingerprint are selectable. Detection is unchanged, so filtering costs nothing extra.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "hubspot",
+      "salesforce",
+      "marketo",
+      "pardot",
+      "intercom",
+      "drift",
+      "apollo",
+      "outreach",
+      "gong",
+      "zoominfo"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Deprecated alias for domain, accepted by the actor as a full company website URL. Prefer domain.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "domain"
-]
  3. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses the APIFY_TOKEN requirement, that Apify credits are consumed per call, that only public data is read, and the shape of what comes back. The annotations already cover openWorld/idempotent/destructive, so the bar is lower and auth/cost disclosure is exactly the kind of extra context that earns credit. The only soft spot is that 'writes nothing' sits slightly awkwardly next to readOnlyHint=false (defensible, since the call spends credits), which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then behavioral constraints. Each sentence carries distinct information (what, what-you-get, cost/auth) with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value burden by describing a flat per-tool boolean JSON row. Combined with the schema's coverage of caching, filtering and spend caps, only minor items (error/async behavior, latency) are unaddressed, so this is close to complete for a detection tool.

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%: all seven parameters, including the deprecated url/company_domain aliases, the 7-day cache behavior, the technologies filter and max_charge_usd, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is there, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detect which GTM tools a company uses from its public website') and narrows the resource to CRM, sequencer and marketing automation signals, which separates it in substance from siblings like detect_ai_tooling or fingerprint_outbound_infrastructure. It does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated source ('from its public website') and the 'Clay-ready JSON row' output, which signals an enrichment-pipeline context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites beyond the token, and no alternative tool is named despite many overlapping sibling enrichment tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools