Skip to main content
Glama

Cms Open Payments

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting standard markdown. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and adds concrete behavioral details.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loading the main action. It is clear and efficient, though could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers purpose, use cases, and output format. It lacks details on error handling or accessibility but is adequate 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%, both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds a concrete example for 'url' but does not elaborately extend parameter understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for a URL, specifying the verb and resource. It mentions key capabilities (fetch, extract, emit) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists three use cases (client indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing) which provide context. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives.

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

All Cms Open Payments 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, causing potential confusion. The open_payments_* tools are clearly differentiated, but the mix of generic Pipeworx tools with domain-specific ones creates overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, open_payments_company), while others use less consistent patterns (deep_research, generate_llms_txt). The open_payments_* tools have a consistent prefix, but the overall set lacks a unified naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the server is heavily overloaded for a domain focused on CMS Open Payments. The majority of tools are general-purpose Pipeworx tools unrelated to the server's name, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The open_payments_* tools cover the CMS Open Payments domain well (search, company, physician, history, etc.). However, the inclusion of many unrelated Pipeworx tools means the server as a whole is not cohesive, and the completeness of the named domain is overshadowed.

Resources