Skip to main content
Glama

Data Lv

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format', aligning with the safe, idempotent nature.

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?

Two sentences plus a bullet line of use cases. Front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Tool has 2 parameters (1 required), no output schema. Description covers what the tool does, what it outputs ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'), and use cases. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links' and 'maximum of link entries' implicitly refers to max_links, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Adequate, not exceptional.

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, specifying the verb, resource, and context. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence) without confusion.

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 for own project, or auditing competitor visibility. It does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear enough given sibling differences.

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

All Data Lv 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct purpose: data lookup (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, memory, monitoring, and prediction market analysis. Overlaps are minimal and mitigated by explicit usage guidance (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded vs. deep_research).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use descriptive snake_case names following a verb_noun or verb_preposition pattern (e.g., entity_profile, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). The naming is predictable and internally consistent, making it easy for an agent to infer tool purposes.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high end for typical MCP servers. However, the server covers an exceptionally broad domain (structured data across SEC, FDA, FRED, weather, news, crypto, etc.) and includes meta-tools, monitoring, and memory. The count is justified but may feel excessive for many use cases.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of data access and analysis: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison, claim validation, monitoring, memory, and feedback. There are no obvious gaps for the declared domain, and a feedback tool is provided for missing functionality.

Resources