Skip to main content
Glama

Bts

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool fetches the page and extracts content, which clarifies the read-only nature and the output format. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a bullet list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the bullet list could be integrated into a single paragraph without loss.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description explains input, process, output format, and use cases. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 both parameters described. The description echoes the schema for url and max_links but adds context about the extraction process. It does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 it generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific steps (fetches, extracts title/description/links, emits markdown). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on generation rather than auditing.

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 lists concrete use cases (client's site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks direct differentiation from related tools.

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

All Bts 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools could cause initial confusion. An agent reading carefully can differentiate them, but the similarity in themes requires attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use a mix of conventions: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, dataset_columns), and single verbs (remember, forget). While some subgroups have internal consistency (e.g., polymarket_*), there is no overall predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the server is comprehensive, the large number of highly specific tools (especially for prediction markets) feels overwhelming and could confuse agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of capabilities: data querying, entity resolution, company analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but for the read-heavy analytical purpose, it is nearly complete.

Resources