Skip to main content
Glama

Cdc

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' No contradictions.

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 and well-structured: one sentence on purpose, one on process, and one listing use cases. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple inputs, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains inputs, process, output format, and use cases without gaps.

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. The description does not add significant new information beyond what the schema provides, 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 tool's purpose: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('llms.txt'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_visibility_check by focusing on creating the file rather than analyzing presence.

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 use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing competitors. It provides clear context on when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, though siblings are listed separately.

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

All Cdc 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research serve similar querying purposes, and there is overlap among prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). However, descriptions help differentiate them, so agents can usually select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with verbs (ask_, resolve_, validate_), but there are noun-style exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) and mixed naming among Polymarket tools. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated, especially given the name 'Cdc' implies a focus on CDC data, yet many tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets and company profiles. Several tools could be consolidated or removed to align with a narrower scope.

Completeness3/5

The CDC domain is thinly covered with only search and get for datasets, lacking upload or advanced filtering. Company financials are limited to basic fundamentals from 10-Ks. Prediction markets are well-covered with arbitrage, edges, and fill risk. The server has notable gaps in its core domain.

Resources