Skip to main content
Glama

artic

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 and idempotentHint=true. The description adds process context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also states the output shape, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by process and use cases. Every sentence delivers value with no redundancy.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, process, output format, and use cases. Output schema is absent, but the description explicitly states the output is 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt,' which is sufficient. Annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both url and max_links. The description only adds 'for any URL,' which is already in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided, 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL') and clearly states the outcome ('so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by naming the exact deliverable and format.

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 'Useful for:' scenarios including getting a client's site indexed, drafting llms.txt, and auditing competitors. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use cases give clear context.

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

All artic 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 clusters of tools heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying sources, and six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have blurry boundaries. The four art museum tools are entirely unrelated to the data-research tools, adding confusion to the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and generally readable, but the verb-object pattern is not consistent: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe) sit alongside verb-first names (get_artwork, validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check). The repeated prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_) do provide some structure.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is overstuffed. The core Pipeworx data and Polymarket analytics surface alone would justify roughly 20 tools, but memory management, subscription lifecycle, llms.txt generation, npm dependency scanning, claim validation, and Art Institute of Chicago lookups are unrelated additions that push the count well beyond a focused scope.

Completeness4/5

Each functional cluster is fairly complete on its own: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, data lookup has casual, grounded, deep, and validation modes, and prediction markets cover research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, and cross-venue spreads. The issue is not missing capabilities but the lack of a single coherent domain.

Resources