Skip to main content
Glama

airports

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Generate llms.txt

generate_llms_txt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL so AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) can index the site cleanly. Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format. Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL of the site to summarize, e.g. "https://example.com" or a specific landing page.
max_linksNoMaximum number of link entries to include (default 25, max 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of fetching the page, extracting content, and emitting a markdown text blob, which goes beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a concise bullet-like list of use cases. It front-loads the core purpose and process, with every sentence contributing meaningful information and no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and supportive annotations, the description thoroughly covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. It does not delve into error handling or edge cases, but those are not essential for a clearly-scoped read-only tool, so 4 is appropriate.

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 both parameters (url and max_links) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource 'llms.txt file for any URL'. It details the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits markdown) and includes use cases that distinguish it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly lists three use cases ('getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'), providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, hence 4 rather than 5.

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

All airports toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the three 'ask_pipeworx' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are highly similar and likely cause confusion. Additionally, the toolset mixes airport-specific tools with unrelated financial and research tools, creating ambiguity about when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use descriptive snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some include brand names (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern emerges across the 34 tools.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'airports'—only 3 tools directly relate to airports (search_airports, get_airport, calculate_distance). The majority are unrelated utilities (financial, prediction markets, memory), making the scope far too broad and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server severely lacks completeness for its stated airport domain: there are no tools for flights, airlines, runways, or real-time data. The other included domains (e.g., financial, prediction markets) are also incomplete, with e.g., only partial coverage of company data and no update/delete operations.

Resources