Skip to main content
Glama

ikeytz – Schlüsseldienst Ludwigsburg

Get Ai Txt

get_ai_txt
Read-only

WHAT: Fetch /.well-known/ai.txt — crawl/training policy (ai-input yes with attribution, ai-train=no, contact). Must be respected when quoting site text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of lines to return after offset. Omit or null = return every remaining line in the fetch window (not the whole disk file if the fetch itself truncated). Clamped to 1..10000. For sitemap.txt (~807 URL lines) omit limit to get the full list. For llms-keywords.txt prefer a window; the file is huge.
offsetNo0-based line index into the fetched UTF-8 file (split on \n). 0 = first line. Omit = 0. Combined with limit = a sliding window. Use nextOffset from the previous result to page. Does not count bytes; one line can be a long URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYestrue = use summary, canonicalUrl, and extra keys. false = do not invent data; read error + hint and retry with valid args or open hint.
hintNoPresent when ok=false. Absolute URL the agent should open or pass to get_ai_page / get_discovery.
pathNoPublic path on www, e.g. /llms.txt or /.well-known/ai.txt
toolYesEcho of the tool name that produced this object (e.g. get_service_area).
errorNoPresent when ok=false. Codes include: unknown_tool, unknown_place, unknown_auswahl, unknown_ratgeber, unknown_doc, unknown_discovery, faq_not_found, wissen_not_found, serp_not_found, q_required, bad_datetime, bad_when_key, plus HTTP errors from fetch.
limitNoApplied line limit, or null if the caller omitted limit.
whichNoResolved discovery id after alias fold (llms, sitemap-txt, ai-catalog, …).
localeNoLocale actually used for URLs (args.locale or de).
offsetNoApplied 0-based line offset.
relatedNoAlways includes https://www.ikeytz.com/llms.txt. Geo tools also include https://maps.ikeytz.com/llms.txt.
summaryNoPrimary text for the model. For discovery tools this is the file window (possibly thousands of characters). For list tools a compact one-liner. Quote with attribution.
totalUrlsNohttp(s) lines in the fetched text.
truncatedNotrue if fetch hit a byte cap OR offset+limit left more lines.
nextOffsetNooffset + returnedLines when more lines remain; else null. Pass as the next offset.
totalLinesNoLine count of the fetched text (after byte cap).
attributionYesRequired citation: 'Quelle: Schlüsseldienst Ludwigsburg ikeytz (ikeytz.com) · ai-train=no · https://www.ikeytz.com/.well-known/ai.txt'
canonicalUrlNoBest URL to show the user: https://www.ikeytz.com… page, or tel:+49…, mailto:…, https://wa.me/…. Prefer this over constructing URLs.
returnedUrlsNoLines in this window that start with http(s)://
bytesReturnedNoUTF-8 byte length of the returned body window.
returnedLinesNoHow many lines are in summary/body this call.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the fetched file contains specific AI policy directives and conveys a normative obligation to respect it when quoting site content. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotation.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs the essential file semantics and compliance requirement with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 schema and output schema handle parameters and return structure, while the description covers the resource, its meaning, and compliance context. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit mapping to related sibling tools, but the unique resource path makes selection unambiguous.

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%, and the schema already gives rich detail on limit/offset semantics, including line-window behavior and concrete use cases (sitemap.txt vs llms-keywords.txt). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch /.well-known/ai.txt') and explains what the file contains (crawl/training policy with ai-input, ai-train, contact). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_sitemap_txt or get_llms_txt by both resource path and semantics.

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 clear context: the policy must be respected when quoting site text, telling the agent when this tool matters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique resource and policy purpose make the appropriate usage context clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clearly distinct roles, but there is real overlap: get_discovery duplicates get_llms_txt/get_llms_mcp_server/get_sitemap_txt, get_it and get_mcp_hub describe the same machines, and get_page_summary is a stub that competes with get_ai_page/get_serp_snippet. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still misselect among the discovery and pointer tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent snake_case verb-noun pattern: get_*, list_*, compose_*, resolve_*. Minor deviations like site_overview, get_it, and find_by_keyword are readable but break the dominant convention.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools for a single small-business website is excessive and well above the 25+ threshold. Many tools are pointer/list aliases or discovery-file accessors that could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: identity, contact, emergency info, pricing, invoicing, service areas, FAQs, legal pages, and generic page content via get_ai_page. Minor gaps exist around explicit opening-hours details, existing customer reviews, and maps-domain functionality, but these are mostly declared out of scope rather than dead ends.

Resources