Klarix Intelligence Engine
REMOTE · MCP.KLARIX.AI · 2 COMPONENTS
Cited competitive intelligence: prospect scoring, battlecards, SWOT, and tech-stack teardowns.
Available components
Last scanned (3 hours ago)
Scores higher than 97% of remote servers
Unreachable for 2 days in a row. Last reached 3 Nov 2026.
Category CRM and Sales
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security11
- TLS not yet verified: we couldn't open a connection to check the certificate. View diagnostics → Unverified
- Authorisation not yet verified: we couldn't confirm whether this endpoint requires it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS not yet verified: we couldn't read the response headers to check for it. View diagnostics → Unverified
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability0
- Transport check failed: declared streamable-http, but we couldn't connect to verify it. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Schema Quality & AI Usability0
- Schema not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's schema, or could read only part of its tool list.Unverified
Stability & Change Management0
- Stability not yet verified: not enough scan history yet (needs a 30-day window).Unverified
Tool Coverage0
- Tool coverage not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Tool Safety0
- Tool safety not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's tools, or could read only part of the list.Unverified
Capabilities0
- Capabilities not yet verified: we couldn't read the endpoint's capabilities.Unverified
Unverified: 5 categories
Categories scored 0 because we could not verify them: authentication we do not have, an unreachable endpoint, or not enough scan history. We only credit what we can confirm.
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 0
- Endpoint reachability: reachable → unreachable ▼ security
- Stability: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Authorization: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Tool safety: pass → unverified ▼ security
- TLS certificate: pass → unverified ▼ security
- HSTS header: fail → unverified ▼ security
- Transport: pass → fail ▼ security
- Schema quality: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- Capabilities: pass → unverified ▼ functional
- Tool coverage: 100 → unverified ▼ functional
- 4 Oct 26 +1
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 2 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 7 Sept 26 0
- Tool “find_matched_prospects” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- “find_matched_prospects” added an optional parameter “screen” cosmetic
- “find_matched_prospects” reworded the description of “min_similarity” cosmetic
- 6 Sept 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- 5 Sept 26 0
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
- “generate_swot_analysis” reworded the description of “competitor_viewpoint” cosmetic
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://mcp.klarix.ai/mcp
TLS unreached
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of mcp.klarix.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| klarix.ai. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Inconclusive
We could not reach the endpoint well enough to judge its authorisation posture.
| Result | Inconclusive |
|---|
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://mcp.klarix.ai/mcp | Unreachable | ||
| http (plaintext) | http://mcp.klarix.ai/mcp | HTTPS enforced |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
analyze_head_to_head Head-to-head: us vs them (matrix + talk tracks + displacement plan) ~417
Compare YOUR company against a specific competitor or incumbent you want to displace. Researches both sides on the live public web, then returns asymmetric advantages (where you win structurally), their defensive moats (where to stop arguing), a fixed four-dimension comparison matrix (Pricing, Tech / Delivery Speed, Quality Floor, Support / Customization), spoken talk tracks and landmines for a live evaluation, and a three-step displacement strategy. Identify your side with our_domain, our_company_name, or a Klarix client_id. Any claimed advantage the evidence does not support is reported back rather than repeated.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| our_advantages | array | – | Advantages you believe you hold, in your words. Merged with our_differentiators; the analysis tests them against the evidence rather than accepting them. |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| target_company_name | string | – | Proper name of the target, when the domain does not make it obvious. |
| target_domain | string | yes | The competitor or incumbent vendor you are trying to displace, e.g. "zoominfo.com". |
| target_vertical | string | – | The buying market this head-to-head is aimed at, e.g. "medical device OEMs". Sharpens every talk track. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| asymmetric_advantages | array | yes | – |
| claims_not_supported | array | yes | – |
| comparison_matrix | array | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| displacement_strategy | array | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| figure_check | object | yes | – |
| landmines | array | yes | – |
| our_company_name | string | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| our_domain | string | – | – |
| our_positioning | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| talk_tracks | array | yes | – |
| target_company_name | string | yes | – |
| target_domain | string | yes | – |
| target_positioning | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| their_moats | array | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
| verdict | string | yes | – |
| win_posture | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
detect_account_triggers Account trigger detection (dated inflection points + first touch) ~312
Detect recent account inflection points (leadership changes, funding, hiring surges, product updates, regulatory events) within a timeframe.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| target_company_name | string | – | Proper name of the account, when the domain does not make it obvious. |
| target_domain | string | yes | Domain of the account to scan for inflection points, e.g. "acme.com". |
| target_vertical | string | – | The market this account operates in, e.g. "medical device OEMs". Sharpens which events count as triggers. |
| timeframe_days | integer | – | How far back to look for triggers, in days. Default 90. Anything older is context, not a trigger. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| growth_and_hiring | array | yes | – |
| leadership_moves | array | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| product_and_pricing | array | yes | – |
| regulatory_or_compliance | array | yes | – |
| scan_summary | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| target_company_name | string | yes | – |
| target_domain | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| timeframe_days | number | yes | – |
| top_immediate_trigger | object | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
find_matched_prospects Find matched prospect companies (Semantic Universe Search) ~685
Build a first-pass candidate list from hundreds of thousands of pre-profiled B2B companies using Voyage 4 semantic vector embeddings. Ranks accounts by topical similarity to an ICP description, tech stack, business model, and vertical, then screens the retrieved candidates for buyer-vs-vendor role and corporate status and reports what it withheld. Returns a candidate net, not a qualified list: the similarity figure is not a fit score, and every account should go through score_prospect_fit before outreach.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| countries | array | – | Restrict to accounts headquartered in these countries (matched against HQ location), e.g. ["United States", "Canada"]. |
| exclude_domains | array | – | Domains to exclude from results (e.g. existing customers or disqualified accounts). |
| headcount_max | integer | – | Maximum employee headcount. Accounts whose headcount band starts above this are dropped. |
| headcount_min | integer | – | Minimum employee headcount. Accounts whose headcount band tops out below this are dropped. |
| icp_or_query | string | yes | Target ICP description, search criteria, tech stack, or problem statement, e.g. "AI infrastructure companies serving enterprise ML teams with high GPU usage". |
| limit | integer | – | Maximum prospects to return (1-25, default 10). |
| min_similarity | number | – | Minimum vector cosine similarity threshold (0.0 - 1.0, default 0.35). Measures topical closeness to the ICP text, not fit or buying readiness. |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| required_tech | array | – | Require at least one of these technologies in the confirmed tech stack, e.g. ["CUDA", "PyTorch"]. |
| revenue_max | number | – | Maximum annual revenue in USD. Recorded for downstream scoring; the semantic index carries no revenue field, so it does not narrow retrieval. |
| revenue_min | number | – | Minimum annual revenue in USD. Recorded for downstream scoring; the semantic index carries no revenue field, so it does not narrow retrieval. |
| screen | boolean | – | Screen retrieved candidates for buyer-vs-vendor role and corporate status before returning them (default true). Set false for the raw similarity ranking, which will include companies that sell what t… |
| sub_category | string | – | Filter by sub-category, e.g. "Serverless GPU Cloud", "Executive Search", "Contract Manufacturing & EMS". |
| vertical | string | – | Filter by vertical: "AI SaaS & DevTools", "Recruiting & Staffing", "Precision Manufacturing & Hardware", etc. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| index_last_updated | string | – | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| prospects | array | yes | – |
| qualification_status | string | yes | – |
| query | string | yes | – |
| screen | object | yes | – |
| search_latency_ms | number | yes | – |
| source | string | yes | – |
| total_matches | number | yes | – |
| total_universe_indexed | number | yes | – |
| vertical | string | – | – |
| withheld_accounts | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
generate_displacement_playbook Displacement playbook (lock-ins, migration, POC clock, aircover) ~291
Generate an end-to-end competitive displacement playbook with switching cost mitigations, POC blueprints, and migration timelines.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_domain | string | – | The account where the displacement happens, e.g. "acme.com". Supplying it grounds the plan in their environment instead of generic switching advice. |
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| target_domain | string | yes | The incumbent vendor you are displacing, e.g. "zoominfo.com". |
| target_vertical | string | – | The market this displacement is aimed at, e.g. "medical device OEMs". Sharpens migration risk and executive framing. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_domain | string | – | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| data_migration_plan | array | yes | – |
| displacement_thesis | string | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| executive_aircover | object | yes | – |
| incumbent_lock_ins | array | yes | – |
| incumbent_name | string | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| poc_acceleration_framework | object | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| target_domain | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
generate_outreach_sequence Generate insight-first outreach sequence ~226
Write cold outreach that opens on a researched, dated insight about the prospect rather than a pleasantry. Supports a 3-step email sequence, a 3-step LinkedIn sequence, or 6 multivariant openers. Enforces the Klarix voice contract (banned AI words and phrases, punctuation tells, rhythm) and reports any violations. Writes to a job title, never to an individual, and never emits contact details.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | string | yes | email = 3-step sequence, linkedin = connect + 2 follow-ups, multivariant = 3 competing openers per channel |
| prospect_company | string | yes | Company you are writing to |
| prospect_domain | string | – | Domain to research for the opening insight. Strongly recommended. |
| target_title | string | yes | Job title or function you are writing to, e.g. "VP Revenue Operations". A title, never a person. |
| value_prop | string | yes | What you do for them, in your own words. Include the outcome and, if you have one, a number. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| anchor_insight | string | yes | – |
| anchor_source | string | yes | – |
| angle | string | yes | – |
| channel | string | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | yes | – |
| do_not_say | array | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| messages | array | yes | – |
| prospect_company | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| target_title | string | yes | – |
| voice_check | object | yes | – |
No examples provided.
generate_swot_analysis SWOT matrix with exploit vectors and counter-plays ~436
Deep multi-source web crawl into a four-quadrant SWOT matrix for a company: internal strengths (moat, proprietary tech, distribution lock) and weaknesses (pricing friction, customer complaints, legacy tech), plus external opportunities (untapped verticals, market vacancies, adjacent expansion) and threats (substitutes, price commoditization, regulatory shifts). Every entry carries evidence and a consequence. Adds strategic exploit vectors for winning deals against them and defensive counter-plays. Curate it to your own business with our_company_name, our_domain, our_differentiators, or a Klarix client_id so every vector is one you can actually execute. Returns markdown plus structured JSON.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| company_name | string | – | Proper company name, if the domain does not make it obvious. Improves search precision. |
| competitor_viewpoint | boolean | – | Override the derived relationship. Left unset, the tool works out whether you actually compete with this company from your own business context and only then adds exploit vectors. Set true to force c… |
| domain | string | yes | Company web domain to analyze, e.g. "zoominfo.com" |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| vertical | string | – | Vertical to sharpen the analysis against, e.g. "lithium battery manufacturers". |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | yes | – |
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| competitor_viewpoint | boolean | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| defensive_counter_plays | array | yes | – |
| domain | string | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| one_line_positioning | string | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| relationship | string | yes | – |
| relationship_rationale | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| strategic_exploit_vectors | array | yes | – |
| swot | object | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
| vertical | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_buying_committee Buying committee map (four seats + multi-threading sequence) ~292
Map the internal buying committee (Economic Buyer, Champion, Technical Evaluator, Procurement) for an account with title patterns, pain points, objections, and multi-threading strategy.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| target_company_name | string | – | Proper name of the account, when the domain does not make it obvious. |
| target_domain | string | yes | Domain of the account whose buying committee you need to map, e.g. "acme.com". |
| target_vertical | string | – | The market this account operates in, e.g. "medical device OEMs". Sharpens titles, pains, and objections. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| committee_summary | string | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| economic_buyer | object | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| multi_threading_strategy | array | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| procurement_legal | object | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| target_company_name | string | yes | – |
| target_domain | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| technical_champion | object | yes | – |
| technical_evaluator | object | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_company_intelligence Company intelligence one-pager (cited) ~143
Synthesize an executive one-pager on a company from live public web sources: snapshot, findings per requested focus area, dated buying signals, deal risks, and stated unknowns. Every claim carries a source URL. Focus areas include pricing, leadership (roles only), recent_events, tech_stack, customers, hiring, funding, products, and risks.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | string | yes | Company web domain, e.g. "acme.com" |
| focus_areas | array | – | Which angles to dig into. Defaults to overview, recent_events, products, risks. "leadership" covers roles, org structure, and publicly reported executive names — never contact details. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| buying_signals | array | yes | – |
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| domain | string | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | – | – |
| executive_summary | string | yes | – |
| focus_areas | array | yes | – |
| focus_sections | array | yes | – |
| recommended_next_actions | array | yes | – |
| risks | array | yes | – |
| snapshot | object | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_competitor_battlecard Competitor battlecard (SWOT + landmines + talk tracks) ~327
Build a live sales battlecard for a competitor domain: SWOT from their point of view, the gap between their marketing claims and buyer-reported reality, and concrete landmines with spoken talk tracks. Every claim cites a public source. Optionally aim it at a target vertical, and curate it to your own business by passing our_company_name, our_domain, our_differentiators, or a Klarix client_id — landmines and talk tracks then become lines your seller can actually defend.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| competitor_domain | string | yes | Competitor web domain, e.g. "zoominfo.com" |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| target_vertical | string | – | Vertical the battlecard should be aimed at, e.g. "staffing agencies". Sharpens the talk tracks. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | string | yes | – |
| competitor_domain | string | yes | – |
| competitor_name | string | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| landmines | array | yes | – |
| one_line_positioning | string | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| positioning_flaws | array | yes | – |
| pricing_posture | string | yes | – |
| relationship | string | yes | – |
| relationship_rationale | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| swot | object | yes | – |
| target_buyer | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| trap_questions | array | yes | – |
| where_they_lose | array | yes | – |
| where_they_win | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_deep_research Deep multi-angle company research (cited) ~279
Exhaustive intelligence probe on a company across five dimensions: firmographic and corporate evolution (funding, revenue tier, team growth), product and technology teardown (stack, API presence, core capabilities), leadership and organizational signals (executive hires, board composition, departures — publicly reported executive names allowed when cited, never contact details), active buying and growth triggers (hiring surges, expansion, product launches), and risk analysis with explicit unknowns. Every finding carries a source citation and an implication. Defaults to depth "standard", which returns a tighter, higher-quality citation list; request "comprehensive" when maximum coverage matters more than citation density.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | string | – | "standard" (default) probes all five dimensions with one lead query each and a 12-source budget. It concentrates the source budget on the highest-quality result per dimension, which in practice yield… |
| domain | string | yes | Company web domain, e.g. "acme.com" |
| focus_topics | array | – | Extra angles to probe, e.g. ["thermal management patents", "EU expansion"]. Added to the standard probe, not a replacement for it. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| buying_triggers | array | yes | – |
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| depth | string | yes | – |
| dimensions | array | yes | – |
| domain | string | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| executive_summary | string | yes | – |
| explicit_unknowns | array | yes | – |
| focus_topic_findings | array | yes | – |
| focus_topics | array | yes | – |
| recommended_next_actions | array | yes | – |
| risks | array | yes | – |
| snapshot | object | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
get_market_landscape Market landscape map (incumbents, disruptors, pricing, narrative) ~174
Map a competitive landscape for an industry or vertical from live public sources: Tier-1 incumbents against emerging disruptors, category positioning quadrants with the white space in each, published pricing models and price bands, and the narrative themes that dominate zero-click and AI answers — including which themes are still open. Ends with buyer shifts and defensible entry wedges. Returns a landscape matrix in markdown plus structured JSON.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_pricing_benchmarks | boolean | – | True (default) researches published pricing models and price bands. False skips the pricing queries for a faster map. |
| industry_or_vertical | string | yes | Market to map, e.g. "lithium battery manufacturing" or "b2b sales intelligence". |
| target_geo | string | – | Geography to scope the map to. Default "US / Global". |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| buyer_shifts | array | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| emerging_disruptors | array | yes | – |
| entry_wedges | array | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| industry_or_vertical | string | yes | – |
| market_definition | string | yes | – |
| market_maturity | string | yes | – |
| market_name | string | yes | – |
| narrative_themes | array | yes | – |
| positioning_quadrants | array | yes | – |
| pricing_models | array | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| target_geo | string | yes | – |
| tier_1_incumbents | array | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
score_prospect_fit Score prospect fit (5-axis, 7+/10 threshold) ~429
Score a company against your ICP on five weighted axes — Strategic Fit, Tech Alignment, Buyer Persona Readiness, Growth Triggers, and Landmine Risk — each 1-10, with a weighted overall and a 7+/10 pursue threshold. Uses live public web evidence and cites every claim. Curate the score to your own business with our_company_name, our_domain, our_differentiators, or a Klarix client_id — a client_id also supplies the ICP, so icp_description becomes optional. Judges roles, never individuals; returns no contact details.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| company_name | string | yes | Legal or trading name of the prospect company |
| domain | string | yes | Primary web domain, e.g. "acme.com" |
| icp_description | string | – | Your ideal customer profile in plain language: segment, size, the problem you solve, and who buys. A vague ICP produces a vague score. Optional only when client_id resolves to a context file that alr… |
| ideal_tech_stack | array | – | Tools or platforms that signal a good technical fit, e.g. ["Snowflake", "Salesforce", "dbt"] |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| vertical | string | – | Vertical to judge fit within, e.g. "industrial manufacturing" |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| axes | array | yes | – |
| company_name | string | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| confirmed_tech | array | yes | – |
| disqualifiers | array | yes | – |
| domain | string | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| growth_triggers | array | yes | – |
| headline | string | yes | – |
| icp_source | string | yes | – |
| landmines | array | yes | – |
| meets_threshold | boolean | yes | – |
| open_questions | array | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| overall_score | number | yes | – |
| recommendation | string | yes | – |
| recommended_action | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| threshold | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
search_scientific_evidence Peer-reviewed and preprint evidence (Semantic Scholar + arXiv) ~245
Retrieve verifiable academic and engineering literature for a technical topic so a claim can cite a resolvable DOI instead of a vendor blog post. Queries Semantic Scholar (citation graph, abstracts, open-access PDFs) and the arXiv preprint index, merges duplicates, and ranks by citation count then recency. Returns title, authors, year, DOI / arXiv URL, citation count, and an extractive key finding taken verbatim from the abstract. Keyless; set SEMANTIC_SCHOLAR_API_KEY to escape the shared anonymous rate limit.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_results | integer | – | Papers to return. Default 5. |
| source | string | – | Which index to query. Default "all" merges Semantic Scholar, arXiv, and PubMed (clinical/biotech) and dedupes by DOI / PMID / arXiv id / title. |
| topic | string | yes | Technical topic phrase, e.g. "battery cathode thermal runaway" or "vector database latency". Noun phrases beat questions. |
| year_from | integer | – | Publication-year floor. Papers older than this, and papers with no known year, are dropped. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_count | number | yes | – |
| papers | array | yes | – |
| provider_notes | array | yes | – |
| providers_queried | array | yes | – |
| source | string | yes | – |
| topic | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
teardown_product_spec Product teardown & specifications (specs matrix + visuals + displacement seams) ~389
Deconstruct a physical hardware device, battery pack, medical system, or software API into an institutional-grade technical specification table with exact units, tolerances, verified images/diagrams, datasheet links, certifications, and displacement seams.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| our_product_specs | array | – | Our own product specifications to benchmark against their specs to highlight asymmetric displacement seams. |
| product_name_or_model | string | – | Specific product name, model number, or SKU to analyze (e.g., "Megapack-2XL" or "Enrich API"). If omitted, analyzes their flagship offering. |
| spec_category | string | – | Focus category for specification extraction. Defaults to "all". |
| target_company_name | string | – | Proper name of the company, when domain alone is ambiguous. |
| target_domain | string | yes | Domain of the company whose product you want deconstructed, e.g. "tesla.com", "enphase.com", or "zoominfo.com". |
| target_vertical | string | – | The target market context (e.g., "custom robotics OEMs" or "sales tech"). |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| certifications_and_standards | array | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| datasheet_urls | array | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| image_caption | string | – | – |
| model_or_version | string | – | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| product_name | string | yes | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| spec_displacement_seams | array | yes | – |
| spec_summary | string | yes | – |
| specifications | array | yes | – |
| target_company_name | string | yes | – |
| target_domain | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
| verified_image_url | string | – | – |
No examples provided.
teardown_tech_stack Tech stack teardown (confirmed vs inferred + displacement angles) ~308
Deconstruct an account's technical infrastructure, dev tools, cloud providers, AI/data stack, and identify displacement vulnerabilities.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | string | – | Klarix client id (kebab-case, e.g. "alium-batteries"). Loads company name, domain, value propositions, win themes, and ICP from clients/{client_id}/context.json when that file is reachable. Explicit… |
| focus_areas | array | – | Layers to probe. Defaults to all five: frontend_backend, cloud_infra, data_ai, business_tools, security. |
| our_company_name | string | – | Your company name. Curates the analysis toward how YOU win instead of a generic read. |
| our_differentiators | array | – | What you actually win on, in your words, e.g. ["3-7 day delivery", "done-for-you, not DIY"]. Anchors talk tracks to claims you can defend. |
| our_domain | string | – | Your own web domain, e.g. "klarix.ai". Lets the tool research your side of the comparison. |
| target_company_name | string | – | Proper name of the account, when the domain does not make it obvious. |
| target_domain | string | yes | Domain of the account whose stack you want deconstructed, e.g. "acme.com". |
| target_vertical | string | – | The market this account operates in, e.g. "medical device OEMs". Sharpens which stack gaps matter. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_and_backend | array | yes | – |
| business_tooling | array | yes | – |
| cloud_infra | array | yes | – |
| confidence_detail | string | – | – |
| data_and_ai_stack | array | yes | – |
| displacement_opportunities | array | yes | – |
| evidence_confidence | string | yes | – |
| focus_areas | array | yes | – |
| our_context | object | – | – |
| sources | array | yes | – |
| stack_summary | string | yes | – |
| target_company_name | string | yes | – |
| target_domain | string | yes | – |
| target_vertical | string | yes | – |
| unknowns | array | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the Klarix Intelligence Engine MCP server?
Klarix Intelligence Engine is a hosted endpoint at https://mcp.klarix.ai/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · mcp.klarix.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-klarix-intelligence 'https://mcp.klarix.ai/mcp'
What is the Klarix Intelligence Engine MCP server?
Klarix Intelligence Engine is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.klarix/intelligence. Cited competitive intelligence: prospect scoring, battlecards, SWOT, and tech-stack teardowns. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://mcp.klarix.ai/mcp).
Is the Klarix Intelligence Engine MCP server safe to use?
Klarix Intelligence Engine scores 89 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Klarix Intelligence Engine MCP server expose?
Klarix Intelligence Engine exposes 15 tools: find_matched_prospects, score_prospect_fit, get_competitor_battlecard, analyze_head_to_head, get_company_intelligence, and 10 more. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 4,953 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Klarix Intelligence Engine MCP server require authentication?
Its publisher declares no required credentials for Klarix Intelligence Engine. We have not been able to confirm that against the live endpoint, and a server can require authorisation without declaring it here.
Is the Klarix Intelligence Engine MCP server still maintained?
Klarix Intelligence Engine is still listed in the MCP registry, though our most recent checks did not reach this channel. We last reached this channel on 3 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.