Skip to main content
Glama

Ecos Kr

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context by explaining the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and that output is a single text blob. This aligns with annotations and adds useful behavioral detail, but does not go significantly beyond them.

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 of three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates purpose, process, and use cases.

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 rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it does, how it works, and what the output looks like. It also provides practical use cases, making it complete for an agent to understand 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 does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema; it implies the URL is used for fetching but doesn't elaborate on max_links. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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, specifying the output format and target users. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its unique function of creating an AI crawler index file, which is not duplicated by any sibling tool.

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 use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the use cases are clearly stated and sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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

All Ecos Kr 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 tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical today, and the polymarket_edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread family plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities cover adjacent jobs. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate them with careful reading, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set has recognizable prefixes like ecos_, ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_, but it also mixes verb_noun names (validate_claim, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), reversed/gerund forms (bet_research, pipeworx_trending), and special tokens (generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable on a per-family basis but not predictable across the full surface.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range for a coherent tool set, and several entries are near-duplicates or wrappers: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The prediction-market and company-research families could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad scope, lifecycle coverage is strong: ECOS has search/items/get/indicators, subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel, memory has save/read/delete, and the data-research surface covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, profiles, changes, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI or execute a single catalog tool directly, but these are workable.

Resources