Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Longview

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 declare readOnly and destructive=false, so the description adds value beyond that by explaining the process: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also discloses the output format: 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt.'

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant words; the first sentence states purpose and the second gives process and use cases.

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 tool with 2 params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. It is fully self-contained and sufficient for an 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 description coverage is 100% (both url and max_links have descriptions). The description doesn't add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifying the verb (generate), resource (llms.txt), and scope (any URL). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the use case of 'auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor', which overlaps with scanning tools.

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 explicit 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'. While it doesn't name alternatives, it gives clear context for when to use the tool.

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

All Arcgis Longview 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Descriptions are unusually explicit about when to use each tool (single lookup vs grounded vs deep research), but the set still contains several genuinely overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility, and six polymarket_* tools share the same 'edge/arbitrage' conceptual space. An agent can usually pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in several clusters.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, and there are coherent prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). However the verb placement is inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_compare, layer_info, polymarket_edges), and bet_research sits outside the polymarket_* family despite being a prediction-market tool.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 'feels heavy' threshold, and more importantly the set mixes what looks like three different servers: a tiny ArcGIS/Longview GIS slice (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets), a massive general-purpose data-research platform from Pipeworx, and a Polymarket prediction-market toolkit. Most tools earn their place for the platform, but far too few belong to the named domain.

Completeness4/5

The research surface is remarkably complete: a router, grounded and beta variants, deep multi-source research, claim verification, entity/profile/change resolution, discovery and suggestion helpers, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feedback — no obvious lifecycle dead ends. Minute gaps exist on the GIS side (no dataset editing, no metadata browsing, no named export/view ops) and a few nooks like screen- leisure tools have no progress/status endpoints, but these are workaroundable.

Resources