Skip to main content
Glama

Data Usdot

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by explaining the process ('Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format') and output format, which enriches understanding beyond annotations.

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 main action and purpose. Every sentence is informative and efficient, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and good annotations, the description adequately covers the purpose, process, output, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the description states the output is a single text blob, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'URL to summarize' and 'max links' but those are already in the schema. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'llms.txt file for any URL', clearly stating the output and its purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing solely on generating the standard llms.txt file, which is a unique capability among the listed tools.

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 by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'), guiding when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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

All Data Usdot 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 tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are one base query flow with different flavors, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all overlap on company information. The Polymarket family and the discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also create boundary confusion despite good descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but it mixes verb_noun tools (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx variants use a beta/grounded suffix pattern that is not applied uniformly across the other tool families.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels like several servers merged into one: US DOT catalog access, a generic Pipeworx data router, prediction-market tools, memory/subscription management, AI-visibility checks, and meta/discovery utilities. Many tools could be consolidated (the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five Polymarket tools, and the discovery trio).

Completeness3/5

The core data lifecycle is broadly covered: catalog search, metadata, querying, natural-language lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparison, research, subscriptions, and memory all have working paths. However, the server is named around US DOT data but only datasets/metadata/query are DOT-specific, and the rest is an unrelated general-purpose data and prediction-market toolkit, leaving the stated domain feeling incomplete.

Resources