Skip to main content
Glama

Coordinates

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds the process of fetching the page and extracting content, which complements annotations. No contradictions, but lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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 with three core sentences followed by use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads key information efficiently.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description explains the output format and location. It covers the generation process and use cases adequately, though it omits potential edge cases like invalid URLs.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, maintaining baseline.

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 from a URL, listing the steps and output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation.

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?

It provides explicit use cases (client site indexing, personal project, competitor audit), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly exclude alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Coordinates 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze Polymarket markets). Descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity for agents.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, create_subscription), but a few use noun_verb (bet_research) or are standalone nouns (centroid, midpoint). Overall, the pattern is fairly consistent despite minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side for an MCP server. The scope is broad (data access, prediction markets, geospatial, memory, subscriptions), so each tool earns its place, but the number is borderline for coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities: data querying, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, geospatial, memory, subscriptions, etc. Minor gaps exist (no batch operations or data export), but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources