Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Charlotte

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the tool fetches the page, extracts key information, and emits a standard markdown output. It also states the output is a single text blob ready for deployment, which is useful beyond the 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, process/output, and use cases. No redundant information or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and good annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, what output to expect, and typical use cases, making it fully self-contained.

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%, so both parameters (url and max_links) are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only hinting at the extraction process. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('llms.txt file'). It also details the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation rather than analysis.

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 provides clear use cases ('getting a client's site indexed by AI', 'drafting llms.txt for your own project', 'auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Arcgis Charlotte 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, deep_research overlaps heavily with ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the six polymarket_* tools have closely related purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, making selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (query_layer, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim). A few noun-style names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_trending deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and the server is named 'Arcgis Charlotte' while only three tools actually relate to ArcGIS. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory toolkit, which creates a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness2/5

For the Pipeworx data side the surface is quite thorough, but for the declared ArcGIS Charlotte purpose it is thin: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer provide read-only access with no update/delete, analysis, or dataset management. The tool set therefore has a significant gap relative to its stated domain.

Resources