Skip to main content
Glama

diceuear

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds process-level transparency by explaining it fetches the page, extracts metadata, and emits a text blob. It goes beyond the safety profile to describe the actual operational flow without contradicting any annotation.

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 two sentences plus a compact 'Useful for' list, all dense with information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by process, output, and use cases—no wasted words.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and the intended applications. It could be slightly more explicit about the return type (e.g., string), but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links). The description reinforces the notion of links but doesn't add new syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', using a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It then details the process (fetch, extract title/description/key links, emit standard markdown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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?

Concrete use cases are listed ('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'), which effectively communicates when to apply the tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclude situations, the unique purpose among siblings makes the context clear.

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

All diceuear 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have mostly clear distinctions: ask_pipeworx variants differ by grounding/evidence guarantees, and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) serve onboarding. However, ask_pipeworx_beta currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, creating transient ambiguity, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx overlap in routing capability though with different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and most follow verb-first naming (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_avatar, subscribe). A few are descriptive nouns (recent_alerts, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) but still readable and predictable. No mixed conventions; overall consistent style.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, and many are auxiliary (avatar generation, memory, feedback) that do not serve the core data-access purpose. The primary question-answering capability is centralized in a few routers, making many separate tools feel redundant or unrelated, which dilutes navigability.

Completeness4/5

The core domain of structured data access is well covered with routing, grounded answering, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, and claim validation. Subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/alerts) and memory (remember/recall/forget) round out the surface. Minor gaps like lack of direct tool invocation outside the router are covered by discover_tools, and no critical dead ends exist for typical queries.

Resources