Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Washingtoncomn

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds process details (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and output format (standard llms.txt markdown, single text blob), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not discuss error handling or network prerequisites.

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 at four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, process, output, and use cases. There is no redundancy or fluff, and it is front-loaded with the action verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description clearly states the output as 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'. It covers functionality, process, and use cases. While it omits error behavior or edge cases, the tool's simplicity (2 params, clear output) makes this sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links with defaults and limits), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, 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 clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'llms.txt file for any URL', and specifies the exact output format and intended use. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence, which focus on analysis rather than file generation.

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: '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.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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

All Arcgis Washingtoncomn 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
Disambiguation3/5

The ArcGIS tools (query_layer, layer_info, search_datasets) are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx family has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools can all appear as plausible entry points for a similar data lookup task. The memory and subscription tools are well separated, but the router-style tools create real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case names with a verb-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, subscribe, remember) or clear noun descriptors (entity_profile, layer_info, polymarket_edges). A few names are more cryptic (recall, forget, resolve_entity) but they still follow the same style. No mixed camelCase or inconsistent separators.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond what the apparent ArcGIS Washington County purpose needs; only three tools actually concern GIS data. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research suite, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and AI-visibility probes. This makes the surface feel like two or three unrelated servers grafted together rather than one scoped package.

Completeness3/5

For the ArcGIS slice, you can discover, inspect, and query layers, but there is no write or create capability, no field-wise editing, no map/feature export, and no feature-level CRUD. The Pipeworx data side is more comprehensive, but the overall server confuses its purpose. The mixed-domain coverage leaves the GIS part only a thin slice of the offered features.

Resources