Skip to main content
Glama

Data Gr

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/links, and outputs markdown. This enriches the behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences: purpose, output format, and use cases. Front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately describes the output as a single text blob in standard llms.txt markdown format. Covers the extraction process and use cases, making the tool fully understandable for an agent.

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% with clear descriptions for url and max_links. The description does not add additional semantic 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the action (generate), resource (llms.txt), and scope (for AI crawlers). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation instead of analysis.

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?

Description explicitly lists three use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting for your own project, or auditing a competitor. While it doesn't state when not to use or name alternatives, the given contexts are clear and helpful for an AI agent to decide.

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

All Data Gr 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the meta-querying tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools, which could cause confusion for an agent deciding which to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb_noun and noun patterns, with snake_case throughout but no single consistent structure (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. bet_research vs. dataset). The naming is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count4/5

At 33 tools, the count is on the higher side but justifiable given the broad scope of the Pipeworx platform, covering data querying, entity analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide range of data sources and operations, including querying, entity profiling, comparisons, prediction market analysis, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing viewer), but the meta-tools handle these adequately.

Resources