Skip to main content
Glama

Devto

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description explains the process: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits markdown. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds process details without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One concise paragraph, front-loads the main action, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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?

With only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: explains output format, use cases, and process. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting the default and max for max_links, and clarifies that output is a single text blob. This enhances understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifies the output format and use cases, and distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on llms.txt generation.

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?

Explicitly lists three use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor). Does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Devto 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but some overlap exists, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several entity/company tools that could be confused. Overall, well-described and mostly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow consistent patterns: snake_case, with clear prefixes for each group (e.g., polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_article, etc.). Naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy to understand the tool's domain and action.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Devto', where only a few tools actually relate to DEV.to. The majority are for Pipeworx data and Polymarket, which are unrelated. The tool count feels bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the DEV.to domain, coverage is incomplete: lacks create/update/delete for articles and missing user profile management. The Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are extensive, but that doesn't compensate for the gaps in the core feature set implied by the server name.

Resources