Skip to main content
Glama

crossref

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format', which clarifies the network access and output nature. It does not mention edge cases or rate limits, but given annotation coverage, this is solid.

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 and well-structured: it leads with the primary purpose, explains the process, states the output format, and lists use cases. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), annotations cover safety, and the description fully explains the purpose, process, output, and use cases. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only mentions 'any URL' in passing. No additional semantic value is provided for url or max_links.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' and explains the process and output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage contexts ('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'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All crossref 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

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. Prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, etc.) also have unclear boundaries, making tool selection tricky for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (get_work, search_works, list_subscriptions, validate_claim). Minor deviations exist: some names are noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes) and prefixes vary (get/search/list/ask/scan), but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named 'crossref', and only three tools actually relate to Crossref. The rest form a sprawling utility belt covering data routing, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets, AI visibility, and npm scanning — a scope mismatch that makes the server feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused offering.

Completeness2/5

The Crossref-specific surface is thin: search_works, get_work, and get_journal cover discovery and metadata but lack citation lookup, author search, and funder information. The broader Pipeworx surface is extensive but has no unifying domain, so it's impossible to consider the overall toolset complete for any coherent purpose.

Resources