Skip to main content
Glama

Datos Ar

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the process: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' No contradictions.

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 concise (two sentences plus a bulleted list) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides additional context. Perfect structure for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, straightforward behavior), the description fully covers input, process, output, and use cases. An agent can reliably decide to invoke this tool based on this information alone.

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% and both parameters are already well-described in the input schema (e.g., max_links default and max). The description mentions the URL parameter implicitly but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description starts with clear verb and resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It specifies output format and lists three distinct use cases, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings (none of which are similar).

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 (e.g., 'getting a client's site indexed by AI'), providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or cite alternative tools, so it's slightly below perfect.

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

All Datos Ar 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around the same underlying data router (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the prediction-market family has five overlapping members, so misselection is possible. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate most intents, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are close cousins.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case, and most follow a clear verb_noun shape like ask_pipeworx, get_series, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges) and the bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy surface that exceeds the 25-tool threshold where selection cost becomes a real problem for agents. The count is inflated by auxiliary concerns like memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, and AI-presence scans that sit alongside the core data-access mission.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflows are well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, get_series), entity resolution (resolve_entity), profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and prediction-market analysis all have end-to-end support. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete. Minor gaps exist — some sources soft-fail and there is little Argentina-specific tooling beyond the time-series pair — but agents can generally work around them.

Resources