Skip to main content
Glama

Censtatd Hk

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds process details (fetching, extracting, emitting markdown) without contradicting annotations. It effectively complements the structured data.

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, front-loading the purpose and following with a useful list of use cases. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the second sentence could be slightly more compact.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (single text blob) and destination (site-root/llms.txt), providing sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing default and max values for max_links (default 25, max 50) and an example URL format, enhancing understanding 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 uses specific verbs ('generate', 'fetches', 'extracts', 'emits') and clearly identifies the resource (llms.txt file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a unique action (generating llms.txt for AI crawlers) not covered by others like search or research tools.

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, auditing a competitor. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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

All Censtatd Hk 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 target a distinct action or resource, and the long routing descriptions make choices like ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research clear. The main weak spots are ask_pipeworx_beta being currently identical to ask_pipeworx and the six overlapping Polymarket tools, but each has a discernible workflow.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming has internally consistent subfamilies such as censtatd_*, ask_pipeworx*, and polymarket_*, but overall it mixes verb-first names (get_table, validate_claim, subscribe), noun-first names (entity_profile, bet_research, pipeworx_feedback), and bare imperatives (remember, forget, recall). The set is readable but does not follow one convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy, especially since many tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) are unrelated to the HK Census core implied by the server name. The broad Pipeworx scope explains the width, but the surface is still large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only research/data-access gateway, coverage is strong: generic lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profile/compare/change, entity resolution, memory, and subscription lifecycle are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update, no explicit bulk/export path, and fewer HK C&SD convenience wrappers, but agents can work around them.

Resources