Skip to main content
Glama

Washington State Open Data

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it fetches the external page, extracts content, and outputs a markdown blob. It does not discuss rate limits or error handling, but this is adequate for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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 a single paragraph with no fluff. Every sentence is informative: it states the action, the process, the output format, and practical use cases. It is well-front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, what it produces, and when to use it. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with both parameters (url, max_links) described in the schema. The description adds context like 'clickable links' and 'default 25, max 50' for max_links, but this is improvement in context rather than new semantics. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, detailing the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/links, emits standard markdown). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings, which include diverse tools like bet_research, query, or subscribe.

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 lists three use cases (client indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling list contains no similar tool, so exclusions are not critical.

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

All Washington State Open Data 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 with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all serving data retrieval. Also, prediction market tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage) are closely related, causing potential ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: mostly snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) but includes camelCase (ai_visibility_check). No clear pattern, mixing verb_noun and other structures.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Washington State Open Data'; only 3 tools (datasets, metadata, query) are directly relevant, while the rest are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools. The count does not match the server's stated scope.

Completeness1/5

The tool set severely misaligns with the server name: it covers general data and prediction markets rather than Washington State Open Data. Only basic query and metadata tools exist for the stated domain, leaving many common dataset operations (e.g., CRUD) missing and providing entirely irrelevant functionality.

Resources