Skip to main content
Glama

Data Tours

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown format. The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with this non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the extraction and output process.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the process and then concrete use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and the generation process. It could optionally mention error handling for invalid URLs, but that is not essential for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds contextual examples ('e.g. "https://example.com" or a specific landing page') and implies the use of max_links for limiting entries, which provides additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 an llms.txt file for a given URL, specifying the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context of AI crawlers. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than scanning. The description also lists specific use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: '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.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the use cases are clear and the context is sufficient for an AI 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 Tours 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by their use cases and safety guarantees. The multiple polymarket tools each focus on a unique aspect (arbitrage, edge scanning, persistence, fill risk, cross-venue spreads), avoiding ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a mostly verb_noun or domain_prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). A few names like dataset_info and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly from a strict verb_noun structure, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier end of the well-scoped range. However, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality: data queries, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory, monitoring, and more. The tools each serve a specific purpose, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of use cases including data retrieval, comparison, research, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for placing prediction market trades or creating/updating Tours Métropole datasets), but these are likely intentional scope choices. Core workflows are well-supported.

Resources