Skip to main content
Glama

Ensembl

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 process details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format' and clarifies output is a single text blob. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear front-loaded statement of purpose, followed by process and use cases. Every sentence adds value. The 'Useful for' list is slightly verbose but acceptable, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations and a clear output format description, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what the result looks like. It lacks edge-case handling details (e.g., invalid URLs) but these are not essential for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema fully documents both 'url' and 'max_links'. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full 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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on llms.txt generation, and briefly explains the process (fetches, extracts, emits), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: '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'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Ensembl 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

There is heavy overlap in the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, validate_claim) — several are near-identical 'route a natural-language question to a source' tools differing only by small qualifiers. ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes also blur together. An agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case verb_noun/noun_verb (list_subscriptions, scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity) which is fairly consistent, but there are several bare single-word verbs (lookup, sequence, variation, vep, xrefs, recall, remember, forget) that break the pattern. No camelCase is present, so the inconsistency is minor rather than chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority (~31) are Pipeworx meta-tools (subscriptions, memory, feedback, trend, discovery, llms.txt generation) that have nothing to do with the server's declared Ensembl identity. Only about 7 tools are actually genomics-related, so the count is inflated by off-domain additions that dilute the surface.

Completeness2/5

For the Ensembl domain, the surface covers gene lookup, symbol resolution, sequence retrieval, orthologs, SNPs, variant effect prediction, and xrefs — but misses major Ensembl capabilities like gene trees/families, regulatory features, comparative/multi-species alignments, expression data, phenotypes, GO/ontology annotations, and region/overlap queries. Conversely the Pipeworx tools are complete for their own domain but irrelevant here, leaving the declared domain notably incomplete.

Resources