Skip to main content
Glama

uooks

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that it fetches the page, extracts specific elements, and outputs a single text blob in standard markdown format, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how it works, and typical use cases. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no fluff.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, process, output format, and use cases. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., page access issues) but is otherwise 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'url' and 'max_links'. The description adds high-level context (extracting links, output format) but does not provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 precisely states the tool's function: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It also details the workflow (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits markdown) and clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by focusing on llms.txt 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 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'). It lacks an explicit list of alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for this unique tool.

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

All uooks 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap at the boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,724 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family is large but each member has a fairly distinct role (research vs. edge scan vs. fill risk vs. tracking); the memory trio and book tools are clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_book, create, search_books, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: recall/remember/forget are bare verbs without a domain prefix, ask_pipeworx begins with a verb but doesn't follow the noun-object structure, and ai_visibility_check/generate_llms_txt break the pattern. It's readable and mostly predictable, but not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the server is a meta-platform exposing a universal data router plus prediction-market analysis, book lookup, memory, subscriptions, and several composite research tools. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set feels sprawling and would benefit from consolidation of the ask_pipeworx variants.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is thorough within the apparent domains: data lookup has multiple tiers (casual, grounded, deep research, claim validation), the Polymarket workflow is complete from research to edge discovery to fill-risk verification, memory has save/retrieve/delete, and subscriptions have create/list/cancel/pull. Minor gaps exist (e.g., book author search by name only via Open Library key, no direct tool for invoking a specific raw data pack), but nothing that would strand an agent.

Resources