Skip to main content
Glama

llms.txt Generator

by de.llms-txt-generator
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate llms.txt content

validate_llms_txt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user pastes the text of an llms.txt file and wants it checked or improved. Checks the text against the llmstxt.org format proposal: H1 title, summary blockquote, H2 sections, absolute Markdown links, duplicates, links to other domains, file size and update date. Returns a 0-100 score, findings with severity and line number, and the Lighthouse "Agentic Browsing" result. Works only on the text provided; it does not fetch anything from the internet. Finding messages are in German.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe full text of the llms.txt file.
expectedHostnameNoOptional hostname of the website, e.g. "www.example.com". Enables the warning for links to other domains.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
lighthouseYesResult of the three Lighthouse 13.3 "llms-txt" audit rules.
validationYesFormat check against the llmstxt.org proposal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Der vollständige Inhalt der llms.txt."New value: +"The full text of the llms.txt file."
    • changedInput schema / properties / expectedHostname / description
      Previous value: -"Hostname der eigenen Website; aktiviert die Warnung bei Links auf fremde Domains."New value: +"Optional hostname of the website, e.g. \"www.example.com\". Enables the warning for links to other domains."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "lighthouse": {
+      "description": "Result of the three Lighthouse 13.3 \"llms-txt\" audit rules.",
+      "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"
+        },
+        "passed": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "passed",
+        "checks"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "validation": {
+      "description": "Format check against the llmstxt.org proposal.",
+      "properties": {
+        "byteSize": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "issues": {
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "code": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "line": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "message": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "severity": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "error",
+                  "warning",
+                  "info"
+                ],
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "code",
+              "severity",
+              "message"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "links": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "score": {
+          "maximum": 100,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "valid": {
+          "description": "true when no error-level finding exists.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "valid",
+        "score",
+        "issues"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "validation",
+    "lighthouse"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantive behavior: a 0-100 score, findings with severity and line numbers, a Lighthouse result, and notably that finding messages are in German. This last detail is non-obvious and materially affects how an agent presents results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the check list, return payload, and the no-fetch/language caveats. Four sentences with little waste, though the check enumeration is dense and could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present, the description need not document returns, yet it summarizes the payload shape and flags the German-language output and offline constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 only two params, so the schema carries the semantics. The description hints at expectedHostname's effect via the 'links to other domains' check but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema's example.

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 and resource (validate llms.txt content) and enumerates exactly what is checked (H1, blockquote, H2 sections, links, duplicates, size, update date). The 'works only on the text provided; does not fetch' line cleanly distinguishes it from the fetching sibling check_published_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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user pastes the text... and wants it checked or improved') and a boundary (no fetching), which separates it from the URL-based sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool directly, so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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 toolsInspect
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