Skip to main content
Glama

Entertainment Feeds

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that the tool fetches the URL (network call), extracts specific elements, and produces a standard markdown blob. This complements the annotations without contradiction and provides insight into the output format.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the output format (single text blob for site-root/llms.txt), the extraction process, and the intended use. No gaps in essential context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds critical details beyond schema: the default value for max_links (25) and its maximum (50). This significantly helps an agent choose appropriate values.

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 verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file', specifies the process (fetches page, extracts metadata, emits markdown), and distinguishes from a broad set of unrelated sibling tools. It provides concrete use cases, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 three use cases (client indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing). It does not specify when not to use it or directly compare to siblings, but the use cases provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Entertainment Feeds 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
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research. Similarly, bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze betting opportunities. These overlapping tools can cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow a snake_case pattern, but the verbs used are highly varied (ask_, bet_, compare_, deep_, discover_, entity_, fetch_, forget_, generate_, list_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, read_, recall_, recent_, remember_, resolve_, scan_, search_, subscribe_, suggest_, unsubscribe_, validate_). This lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for an 'Entertainment Feeds' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to entertainment (e.g., SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, Polymarket betting). Many of these should belong to a separate 'data-access' server, making the scope unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For an entertainment feeds server, the set is incomplete. It can list and read curated feeds and fetch arbitrary RSS, but lacks tools for managing subscriptions to those feeds, searching across feeds, or creating feeds. The inclusion of many non-entertainment tools doesn't compensate for these gaps.

Resources