Skip to main content
Glama

Data Edmonton

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds meaningful behavior context: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs a standard markdown blob. This goes beyond the 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences: purpose, process/output, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the main action, contains no fluff, and every sentence adds value. This is an exemplary concise yet informative description.

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 involves fetching a URL and producing a specific output, and the description explains both the process and the output format ('standard llms.txt markdown', 'single text blob'). With annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, no critical context is missing.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (url and max_links), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, but it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('llms.txt file'). It details the process (fetch, extract, emit) and distinguishes it from any sibling tool by its unique output format and purpose.

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, drafting llms.txt for a project, and auditing competitor AI visibility. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly exclude wrong contexts, but the scenarios are clear and actionable.

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

All Data Edmonton 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 tool clusters have significantly overlapping scopes. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all return grounded answers with different levels of verification. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also has fuzzy boundaries that could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, scan_dependency). A few nouns like entity_profile and recent_alerts deviate slightly, and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) are single-word verbs, but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server whose name suggests a focused Edmonton open-data scope; only 3 tools actually relate to Edmonton data. Even as a general data platform, the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and includes many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback) that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For the Edmonton open-data subset, search, query, and recent-records cover the core lifecycle well. The broader Pipeworx toolset is comprehensive (entity profiles, comparisons, claims, subscriptions, memory), with only minor gaps like a direct catalog-browsing tool for the 1393 sources.

Resources