llms.txt Generator

Check Lighthouse "Agentic Browsing" rules

check_lighthouse_agentic_browsing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user only wants to know whether a given llms.txt text passes the Lighthouse 13.3 "Agentic Browsing" audit (llms-txt). Applies exactly its three rules: an H1 exists, at least one Markdown link, more than 50 characters. On failure it returns Lighthouse's original message. Works only on the text provided and does not fetch anything. For a full format check use validate_llms_txt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	The text of the llms.txt file.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`checks`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`reference`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"Der Inhalt der llms.txt."New value: +"The text of the llms.txt file."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checks": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "failureMessage": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "enum": [
+              "h1",
+              "links",
+              "length"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "passed": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "passed"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "reference": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "passed",
+    "checks"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world traits, yet the description adds real value: the exact three rules applied, that failure returns Lighthouse's original message, and that it only inspects the supplied text and fetches nothing. Mostly complete, though success-side behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then rules, then failure behavior, then the sibling alternative. No repetition or filler.

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?

With annotations, a fully documented single-parameter schema, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs — scope limits, rule set, and the alternative tool — without redundancy.

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% for the single 'content' parameter, so the schema already defines it as the llms.txt text. The description adds only marginal framing ('uses only the text provided') and no format or size guidance (e.g. the 200k maxLength).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: check whether llms.txt text passes the Lighthouse 13.3 'Agentic Browsing' audit. It also names the exact audit id (llms-txt) and its three rules, clearly separating it from validate_llms_txt.

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 when-to-use ('when the user only wants to know whether a given llms.txt text passes...') and an explicit alternative ('For a full format check use validate_llms_txt'), so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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

All llms.txt Generator tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?