Skip to main content
Glama

F1

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the process: fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting standard markdown format. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise, with three sentences: purpose, process, use cases. Each sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the output (a text blob) and the main steps. However, it could briefly note potential errors or limitations, but not critical.

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 description doesn't need to add much. It does not explain the 'url' parameter beyond what's in the schema, and for 'max_links' it repeats the schema's default and max. No extra semantic value is provided.

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 an llms.txt file for a URL, specifying the verb 'generate' and the resource 'llms.txt file'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a specific output format for AI crawlers, with no overlapping sibling tool for the same purpose.

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 three explicit use cases (client indexing, own project, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence', missing some exclusion criteria.

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

All F1 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

Several tools are near-clones: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differ mainly by mode, and deep_research overlaps with all of them. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also blur together, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve a 'what can I do' purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the convention is mixed: verb-first (get_current_standings, validate_claim, scan_dependency), noun-first (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe). The F1 tools follow a clean get_* pattern that doesn't extend to the rest of the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive, especially since the server is named 'F1' but only 4 tools relate to F1. The set could be consolidated substantially: three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple overlapping polymarket scanners, and two tool-discovery helpers all add weight without clear scope.

Completeness2/5

The F1 side is thin: no qualifying results, constructor standings, lap data, circuits, or driver search by name. The Pipeworx half is broad, but it belongs to a different domain, leaving the overall surface feeling incomplete for either purpose.

Resources