Skip to main content
Glama

Dockerhub

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits markdown. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but overall behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences plus a short use case list. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, output format, and use cases adequately for a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. Missing error conditions or limitations, but overall sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only mentions the extraction process. No additional semantics for 'url' or 'max_links'.

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 it generates an llms.txt file for a URL, using specific verbs like 'Generate', 'Fetches', 'extracts', 'emits'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by explicitly focusing on llms.txt file creation.

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 concrete use cases (client indexing, own project, competitor audit) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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

All Dockerhub 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, and validate_claim all perform data lookups with subtle differences. Polymarket tools also have overlapping scopes. The large number of tools with similar functions creates confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (get_image, list_subscriptions), others are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are single words (forget, recall). No clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high, and many are unrelated to Dockerhub. The server name suggests a focused Docker toolset, but the bulk of tools are for Pipeworx/Polymarket/data lookups, making the count excessive for the advertised domain.

Completeness2/5

As a Dockerhub server, it lacks basic Docker operations like push, delete, or manage repositories. As a general data toolset, it covers many domains but still misses some core operations (e.g., no tool for searching inside images).

Resources