Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Branson

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).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds process details beyond annotations: it fetches the page, extracts specific elements, and emits a standard format. It also clarifies the output is a single text blob ready for site-root, which is useful behavioral context not captured in structured metadata.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs in essential details (input, process, output format, use cases) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the return format ('standard llms.txt markdown format', 'single text blob'). Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema explains parameters, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., url and max_links are fully documented in the schema).

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+resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It clearly explains the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown) and the output, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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 'Useful for' section explicitly lists three scenarios: indexing a client's site, drafting llms.txt for your own project, and auditing a competitor. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or situations when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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

All Arcgis Branson 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All 33 tools have clearly distinct purposes, even those that seem related like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by use case and behavior. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts) are similarly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are mixed: some are single verbs (forget, recall), some verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), some noun_noun (entity_profile, layer_info), and some longer phrases (polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence). While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less coherent.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the surface is overly broad for a server named after a specific ArcGIS dataset. Many tools are unrelated to the core purpose (e.g., polymarket tools, npm scanning, AI visibility), making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the stated ArcGIS Branson focus, only 3 tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) are relevant, offering only read access. The rest are a miscellaneous collection from the Pipeworx ecosystem and other domains, leaving obvious gaps in GIS functionality and no write or analysis capabilities.

Resources