Skip to main content
Glama

Bnm My

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs a single text blob in standard llms.txt markdown format. This aligns with the annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and a complete schema, the description adequately explains the output format (single text blob) and input requirements. It covers the main behavioral aspects and use cases, leaving no critical gaps for an AI agent to invoke it 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%, meaning parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it implies usage of 'url' and 'max_links' via context. Baseline score 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 tool's action ('generate a production-ready llms.txt file'), specifies the target resource (any URL), and explains the process (fetches, extracts, emits). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being unique in function; no other sibling appears to generate llms.txt files.

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 does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to determine appropriate usage.

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

All Bnm My 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

Many tools occupy clearly different niches, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap the same router concept, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all target similar 'find an edge' territory. An agent would need to read very long descriptions carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and usefully grouped by prefixes like bnm_, polymarket_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set fairly scannable. However, conventions mix verb-first names (ask_, discover_, resolve_, validate_) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes), so it is not a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range, and the server bundles several distinct domains: BNM data, the Pipeworx research platform, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscription management. This breadth would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The BNM-specific surface is well covered, with dedicated tools for the main series plus a generic bnm_endpoint passthrough for anything else. The broader data side is also unusually complete, with routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, and claim verification; only minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated historical endpoint for some BNM series.

Resources