Skip to main content
Glama

Endoflife

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detail about fetching the page and extracting title/description/key links, which is useful but does not reveal any behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured paragraph of 3 sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains concise without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input and output (text blob). Annotations cover behavioral aspects, so the description is complete for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description briefly mentions 'Full URL' and 'Maximum number of link entries' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema's descriptions.

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's purpose: generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It specifies the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt', and the target users (AI crawlers). This is distinct from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' which likely audits AI visibility rather than generating the file.

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 lists concrete use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing competitors. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the provided contexts are helpful for an agent to decide.

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

All Endoflife 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes three near-identical ask_pipeworx variants, multiple overlapping prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research), and three endoflife tools buried among 31 unrelated Pipeworx tools. This makes distinguishing between tools genuinely confusing, especially when several appear to route to the same underlying data.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (list_products, get_product), others noun_noun (polymarket_edges, bet_research), and a few are bare verbs (recall, forget). The style is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too high for a server named 'Endoflife'—only three tools actually relate to endoflife.date tracking. The remaining 31 tools belong to a separate Pipeworx platform, making the tool count an extreme over-scoping for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The endoflife subset is complete: list_products, get_product, and get_cycle cover the full lifecycle of discovering and retrieving release/support timelines with no dead ends. The broader Pipeworx toolkit also appears fairly comprehensive for its own domain, but the mixed set makes it hard to assess a single coherent surface.

Resources