Skip to main content
Glama

Biostudies

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that the tool fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard llms.txt markdown. This explains the internal process beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or rate limits.

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: three sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No redundant words.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters, no output schema, and the behavior is straightforward (fetch, extract, format). The description explains the output format and typical use. It is mostly complete; a note about handling failed fetches could be added but is not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add further semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The tool's description focuses on purpose and output, not parameter details, so baseline 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 purpose: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It specifies the verb 'Generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the scope 'for any URL'. This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on other tasks like AI visibility checking or research.

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 includes a 'Useful for' section listing three concrete use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, or auditing a competitor. This provides good context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools. No sibling tool directly competes with this function, so alternatives are less critical.

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

All Biostudies 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 tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as functionally identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research are overlapping query modes, and ai_visibility_check / scan_competitor_ai_presence / discover_tools / suggest_questions all blur into discovery or visibility tasks. The two actual BioStudies tools are clear, but they are buried in a server dominated by Pipeworx meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, and many follow a verb_noun shape such as search_studies, get_study, and discover_tools. However, the convention is inconsistent across the set: noun-first names like entity_profile and polymarket_edges, brand-prefixed names like pipeworx_feedback, and verb-first product names like ask_pipeworx all coexist, making the pattern harder to predict.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well into the too-many range, and the count is especially inappropriate for a server named Biostudies since only search_studies and get_study actually belong to that domain. The rest form a sprawling general-purpose data-research platform that appears to have been merged into one server without a clear scope.

Completeness3/5

For the BioStudies-specific surface, search_studies and get_study provide reasonable read-only coverage for the EBI archive. But as the broader research platform the other 31 tools imply, the set is hard to evaluate for completeness because most actual data access is delegated to Pipeworx's hidden 5,718 tools rather than exposed directly, leaving notable gaps in transparency and direct source-level control.

Resources