Skip to main content
Glama

Ca Procurement

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the process: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits markdown. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness, and the description is consistent with these. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first states core function clearly, second lists use cases. Every sentence is essential, no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the output is 'standard llms.txt markdown format' and 'single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'. It also covers process and use cases, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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, specifies the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt', and the actions (fetch, extract, emit). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which has a different purpose.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, or auditing competitor. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but given no sibling tool performs the same function, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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

All Ca Procurement 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set has severe overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) overlap heavily in finding betting opportunities. An agent would struggle to select among these without deep familiarity, especially when ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical.

Naming Consistency2/5

Individual families are internally consistent (ca_procurement_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the server as a whole mixes domain-prefixed snake_case, bare verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). More importantly, the vast majority of tool names have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Ca Procurement' identity, so the naming fails to signal a coherent tool set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and over 85% of them (31 tools) are unrelated to California procurement—they cover general data lookup, prediction markets, npm packages, and memory storage. A scoped CA procurement server would reasonably have 5–8 tools; this is a general-purpose data platform wearing a procurement label.

Completeness3/5

The five relevant ca_procurement_* tools cover the main read-side query patterns well: award search, commodity rankings, department profiles, supplier aggregation, and top suppliers. However, the surface lacks contract/award detail retrieval by ID, solicitation or RFP search, and any vendor registration or contract lifecycle data, leaving notable gaps for a procurement-focused tool set.

Resources