Skip to main content
Glama

Data Brussels

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds implementation details: fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and outputting standard llms.txt markdown. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is relatively concise with three sentences, front-loading the primary action. It could be slightly more concise but maintains clarity without unnecessary words.

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 adequately covers purpose, behavior, and output format. The context signals confirm high schema coverage, so no gaps remain.

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 'url' and 'max_links'. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It mentions use cases but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence, though the focus on producing a standard file format is distinctive.

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 useful scenarios (client indexing, own project, competitor audit), which implies when to use it. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, missing explicit guidance on tool selection.

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

All Data Brussels 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear descriptions differentiating similar ones like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. However, some overlap exists between deep_research and ask_pipeworx, though descriptions provide guidance.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check), multi-word phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence), and simple verbs (query, recall). No uniform pattern like verb_noun convention.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (data querying, prediction markets, subscriptions). It feels slightly heavy but still manageable; borderline between reasonable and excessive.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx and prediction market tools are comprehensive, but Brussels Open Data is underrepresented with only three tools (query, dataset_info, search_datasets). Missing update/delete operations for Brussels data, though likely read-only.

Resources