Skip to main content
Glama

Apology

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the process (fetches page, extracts info, emits markdown), which complements annotations without contradiction. No further disclosure needed.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the primary action and main features, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, but rich annotations), the description covers the process, output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'), and use cases. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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% with both parameters fully described. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly defines the tool's action ('generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL') and distinctively positions it among siblings by specifying its use case for AI crawler indexing. It avoids tautology and provides a specific verb-resource combination.

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 (client indexing, drafting for own project, auditing competitor), providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the listed use cases sufficiently guide selection.

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

All Apology 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates with beta explicitly identical to the stable version, causing potential misselection. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and resolve_entity/discover_tools/ask_pipeworx all serve lookup purposes. Many tools are distinct, but the boundaries around the core query tools are blurry.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: mostly snake_case but mixed verb styles (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs resolve_entity), brand prefixes applied irregularly, and no uniform convention (e.g., subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions vs forget/remember/recall vs polymarket_arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker). Some names are descriptive, but the set lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25 threshold for a heavy surface, and the server mixes unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, apology generation). While a large data platform could justify many tools, the random inclusions (apology_generate, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) suggest a lack of scoping. Several tools could be consolidated without loss.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research/prediction-market domain, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, comparison, arbitrage scanning, fill risk, subscriptions, memory, and discovery are all present. Minor gaps exist (no direct account management beyond subscriptions, no tool to modify stored memories), but agents can mostly achieve their goals. The stray non-domain tools do not hurt completeness of the core platform.

Resources