Skip to main content
Glama

Facebook_ads

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description details the steps (fetch, extract, emit) beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It aligns with annotations and adds context about the generated output format. No contradictions; however, it does not cover edge cases like invalid URLs.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, process, use cases. Front-loaded with key verb and resource. No redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, the input, and the output (text blob for site-root). It is complete and intuitive.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for url and max_links; it only contextualizes the overall process.

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 a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb (generate) and resource (llms.txt). It details the process—fetching page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting standard markdown—and distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation.

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: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, and auditing competitors. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not include explicit exclusions or when-not scenarios.

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

All Facebook_ads 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
Disambiguation4/5

The 11 fb_* Facebook tools are clearly separated by resource (account vs campaign vs adset) and action (list vs get vs create), and the Pipeworx research tools each have distinct roles (router, grounded, profile, compare, research). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research overlap in routing/fan-out behavior, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-identical in purpose, creating some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The 11 fb_* tools follow a consistent fb_verb_noun pattern (except fb_get_campaign vs fb_list_*), but the remaining 25+ tools mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and generic names (forget, recall, remember). Pipeworx tools use verb_noun mostly consistently (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity) but the overall set blends two naming cultures without a unifying prefix or pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the heavy side for one server. The Facebook ads domain only needs ~11 tools, while the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx research/meta platform (memory, subscription, prediction-market, web-tooling, AI-visibility) that feels like several servers merged into one. Each area is internally coherent, but as a single MCP server the count is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The Facebook ads surface covers list accounts/campaigns/adsets and read campaigns/insights, but notably lacks create/update/delete operations for campaigns and adsets, so the ad-management workflow has dead ends. The Pipeworx research side is extremely complete for data lookup (router, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, verification), though the memory/subscription tools introduce a separate domain that is only thinly supported.

Resources