Skip to main content
Glama

Cpsc

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits 'the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also clarifies the output as a 'single text blob,' going beyond the annotation baseline.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the process and use cases. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with only 2 params and no output schema, the description explains what it does, how it does it, what the output looks like, and why it is useful. It is self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to select and 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%: both 'url' and 'max_links' have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('llms.txt file') and scope ('for any URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation rather than checking or scanning.

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 ('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'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

All Cpsc 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

Most tools are organized into clearly differentiated families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage), but there are some genuinely ambiguous pairs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and search_recalls/recent_recalls, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and bet_research/polymarket_edges all require careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently lowercase snake_case and contains strong families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, recent_*, and search_*. However, the naming pattern is mixed: imperative verbs (recall, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and action prefixes (scan_, generate_, validate_) all coexist, making the overall convention less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the healthy range and spreads across many side domains: data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits. No individual tool feels pointless, but the overall surface is sprawling rather than tightly curated for a single purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is well covered: querying, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, deep research, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct reader for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no tool to update or edit a stored memory, and subscriptions can be created/cancelled but not modified—but agents can work around these.

Resources