Skip to main content
Glama

Emsc

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. Beyond that, the description adds that it fetches the page, extracts metadata, and outputs the standard format. This provides useful behavioral context not covered by annotations.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value as a text blob ready to deploy. It covers the workflow and use cases. It could be improved by noting error handling (e.g., if the URL is unreachable) or limitations, but overall it is adequate.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add extra meaning beyond stating it fetches the page and emits output, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, extracting title/description/key links and emitting standard markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation for AI crawler indexing.

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 explicit use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing competitor visibility. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools within the sibling list.

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

All Emsc 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) cover adjacent tasks that require careful reading. However, descriptions are unusually explicit about when to prefer each, and non-overlapping domains (memory, subscriptions, earthquakes, npm) are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, scan_, search_, validate_), making the surface predictable. Minor deviations like deep_research, entity_profile, and single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but each family is internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and several could be consolidated — ask_pipeworx_beta is redundant today, and the prediction-market suite could fold into 2-3 tools. The count reflects a genuinely wide data platform with meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx) already covering discovery, so the surface feels heavy for an agent to triage.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: querying (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), research profiles (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), input resolution (resolve_entity), fact-checking (validate_claim), memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle all have complete loops. Minor gaps exist, notably no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly (search_within expects already-fetched text), and some one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Resources