Validate an llms.txt payload for spec compliance (H1 title, endpoints section, pricing section, structure). Returns a validation report with errors, warnings, and structural flags. Requires a valid API key (Bearer token); billing is per input character. To generate new llms.txt, use generate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | llms.txt content to validate. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with annotations covering readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: requires a valid API key (Bearer token), billing is per input character, and it returns a validation report with errors, warnings, and structural flags. This goes beyond the annotation metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then quickly cover return behavior, auth/billing, and the sibling pointer. No redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, return format, auth requirements, billing, and alternative usage. An agent has everything necessary to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'content' parameter, and the description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states the tool validates llms.txt content for spec compliance, enumerating criteria (H1 title, endpoints section, pricing section, structure). It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'generate', making its scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states when to use the tool (validate llms.txt payload) and gives an explicit when-not by recommending 'generate' for creating new llms.txt. This provides a clear boundary against a relevant alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool performs a distinct operation: conversion, diffing, patching, pruning, llms.txt generation, validation, and cost estimation. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference related tools (diff/patch, generate/validate), which further prevents misselection.
All seven tools use lowercase single-word imperative verbs (convert, diff, estimate, generate, patch, prune, validate), forming a consistent and predictable naming convention.
Seven tools is within the ideal range and every tool has a clear purpose. The set is compact rather than sprawling, with no redundant or filler tools.
The paired workflows are complete: diff/patch, generate/validate, and convert/prune cover their stated operations without dead ends. The main gap is that the estimate workflow points to an external pricing endpoint for supported models rather than exposing model/pricing lookup as a first-class tool, which is a minor obstacle.