Skip to main content
Glama

GetBotRank Free AI Search Tools

generate_llms_txt

generate_llms_txt

Generate an llms.txt file for a domain from its sitemap (up to 40 pages in this MCP call).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "generate_llms_txt"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain, for example example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that generation is driven by the sitemap and capped at 40 pages, but it does not say whether anything is written/published to the site, whether the call is read-only, how the generated content is returned, or what happens past the 40-page limit — material ambiguities for a 'generate' operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source (sitemap) and the important constraint (up to 40 pages) are both stated compactly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and no output schema exists so return values should be hinted at, which they are not. It also omits the prerequisite sitemap assumption and post-limit behavior, leaving an agent with open questions before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already establishes the domain format. The description adds value by clarifying that the domain is used to locate a sitemap, giving context the schema does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and artifact (generate an llms.txt file) plus the input source (the domain's sitemap), which is more than the bare title restates. No sibling tool does anything similar, so ambiguity with the other check_/validate_/generate_ tools is low even without an explicit differentiation sentence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites — notably that the domain must have a discoverable sitemap (a sibling, validate_sitemap, exists). The 40-page cap is stated as a hard limit but with no advice on how to handle larger sites.

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.