Skip to main content
Glama

Data Ny

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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that it fetches the page and extracts content, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential runtime behaviors like network failures, rate limits, or response size constraints. The added detail is on par with the date-range scoping in the calibration example, which earned a 3.

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, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the core action, contains no filler, and every sentence adds value. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed: input (any URL), optional max_links, process (fetch/extract/emit), output (markdown text blob), and use cases. It is complete without being verbose.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (url and max_links) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's function: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific steps (fetching, extracting, emitting) and output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check, which likely focus on auditing presence rather than producing the file.

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 one's own project, or auditing a competitor. It does not name alternative tools, so it lacks 'when not to use' guidance, but the scenarios are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Data Ny 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim have overlapping functionality in answering factual questions. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, though some confusion may still arise.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity). No mixing of camelCase or other styles, making the naming predictable and uniform.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the higher side, but many are meta-tools (discover, feedback, subscriptions) and some are redundant (ask_pipeworx vs grounded). While the scope is broad, the count could be trimmed for tighter focus.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.) with strong read and analysis capabilities. Missing update/delete operations and direct trading, but comprehensive for data retrieval and analysis.

Resources