Skip to main content
Glama

Complex Portal

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations confirm safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds details about what it does (fetch, extract title/description/links, emit markdown), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise: two main sentences and a bullet-like list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: input URL, output format, and use cases. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 (url, max_links). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 it generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence. It specifies the action (generate), resource (llms.txt), and purpose (index by AI crawlers).

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 provides explicit use cases (client site indexing, own project, competitor audit), but does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. This gives clear context for typical usage.

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

All Complex Portal 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with them, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all circle the same company-data space. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also requires careful reading to distinguish. The descriptions help, but the set relies on them to disambiguate near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case style, whether verb_noun (search_complexes, validate_claim, unsubscribe), noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), or brand-like (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges). There is no camelCase mixing or chaotic verb style. Minor inconsistency exists between imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe) and noun-style names, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, remember/recall/forget) that pad the surface. The server is named 'Complex Portal', yet only two tools serve that purpose—the rest belong to a broad data platform. The count feels inflated and misaligned with the server's stated identity.

Completeness3/5

For the broad Pipeworx data platform the surface is fairly complete: universal querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. For the Complex Portal domain named by the server, coverage is thin—just search and fetch-by-accession, with no browsing, species filtering, or cross-reference tools. The core workflow works, but the namesake domain is under-served relative to the rest of the set.

Resources