Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lakecountyil

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 and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable process context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format', and states the output is 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'. This exceeds the baseline set by annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact yet information-dense: it states the purpose, explains the process, defines the output location, and lists use cases—all in four sentences. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, how it behaves, and what the result looks like. The annotations handle safety semantics, and the use cases round out the context. No critical gaps remain.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters ('url' and 'max_links') with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifying the exact verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on producing the standard llms.txt format rather than just visibility 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 'Useful for' list provides clear contexts such as 'getting a client's site indexed by AI' and 'auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the scenarios are specific enough to guide selection.

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

All Arcgis Lakecountyil 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and entity_profile all perform data lookups with only subtle differences. discover_tools and suggest_questions also serve similar onboarding/exploration roles.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun or noun_phrase pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, query_layer, entity_profile, remember). There is a slight mix between verb-first and noun-first names but no chaotic conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb tense.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the count is well above the typical 15-25 range for a coherent server. More critically, the server is named 'Arcgis Lakecountyil' but only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to ArcGIS; the remaining 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the ArcGIS domain implied by the server name, the surface is barely complete: it offers search, schema inspection, and querying, but no create, update, delete, or management capabilities. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is relatively rich, but that doesn't match the server's stated purpose, leaving the overall set incomplete for its apparent intended use.

Resources