Skip to main content
Glama

chucknorris

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and the output format (standard llms.txt markdown). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, how it works, and when to use it. No fluff, well-structured, and information-dense.

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 explicitly states the output is a single text blob ready for site-root/llms.txt, covering return value. Combined with annotations and use cases, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 url and max_links having descriptions. The description does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the schema; it just reiterates 'any URL' and implies link extraction. 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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for a URL, with a specific verb (generate), resource (llms.txt), and scope (any URL). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the output artifact and includes the fetch/extract/emit process.

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 'Useful for' list gives three specific use cases, indicating when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for llms.txt generation tasks.

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

All chucknorris 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical query routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all hunt mispricings in subtly different ways. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription trio (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) are distinct, but the many data-query tools create frequent ambiguity for an agent deciding which one to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_categories, resolve_entity, validate_claim), bare nouns (entity_profile, random_joke, deep_research), single verbs (forget, recall), and brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). There's no consistent pattern across the set, so an agent cannot predict a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools for a server named 'chucknorris' is an extreme mismatch; only 4 tools actually relate to Chuck Norris jokes. The rest form a sprawling collection of data-research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory utilities that have nothing to do with the stated server identity and overwhelm any agent expecting a simple joke API.

Completeness2/5

The Chuck Norris joke subset is complete (random, by-category, search, categories), but the overall server attempts many unrelated domains—structured data queries, prediction-market arb, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory—none of which are clearly scoped or fully coherent. The result is a grab-bag with no single domain that feels finished, and the incongruous inclusion of joke tools adds confusion rather than coverage.

Resources