Skip to main content
Glama

Artsmia

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard markdown format. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the process.

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 (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, covering the action, process, output format, and use cases without unnecessary elaboration.

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 relatively simple tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers the input, process, output, and practical applications, leaving no gaps for the agent to infer.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description has no need to add extra semantics. The tool description does not provide additional parameter context beyond what the schema already offers.

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, specifying the action ('Generate'), the resource (llms.txt), and the context (AI crawlers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on file generation, which no other tool does.

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 (client indexing, personal projects, competitor auditing), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare directly with alternatives like ai_visibility_check.

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

All Artsmia 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) all target prediction-market analysis with fuzzy boundaries. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap as well. While some tools are clearly distinct (art search vs memory), the set as a whole requires careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow multiple patterns: verb_noun (search_artworks, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain_prefixed (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and product-style names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research). Versioned suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded break any unified convention. Even though subgroups are internally consistent, the overall pattern is mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the high side, especially for a server named after an art museum. Only 3 tools actually relate to the Minneapolis Institute of Art, while the rest are a general-purpose data platform, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscription features. Many of these extra tools are redundant or power-user variations, making the count feel inflated relative to the apparent domain.

Completeness3/5

For the stated art domain, the read-only surface (search, get, department highlights) is functional but thin — no artist browse, exhibitions, or advanced filtering. The broader data tools are comprehensive in themselves, but their presence distracts from the core domain and creates confusion about the server's intended purpose. The art coverage is adequate for basic queries but lacks depth expected from a dedicated museum collection API.

Resources