Skip to main content
Glama

Fas

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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts info, and emits markdown, which is consistent but doesn't provide additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, caching).

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases and output format. Each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output clearly (text blob ready for site-root/llms.txt). It covers input, process, output, and use cases. Annotations and schema cover safety and parameters well.

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%. The description mentions max_links but doesn't add syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters fully.

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 it generates an llms.txt file for a given URL, targeting AI crawlers. It specifies the action (generate), the resource (llms.txt), and the output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are similar.

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, personal project, competitor audit). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, but the use cases are clear enough.

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

All Fas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research vs. validate_claim). However, a few pairs like ask_pipeworx_beta vs. ask_pipeworx and validate_claim vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping roles, even though descriptions do differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and many follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Some exceptions like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending break the strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable and stylistically uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, this is above the typical 'well-scoped' range and exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heavy servers. However, the server covers a very broad domain (financial data, prediction markets, agriculture, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), which partially justifies the count, but it still feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution and comparison, prediction-market analysis, agricultural data (FAS tools), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscription management (subscribe/unsubscribe/list). The only minor gap is lack of direct write/update operations for external data, but that's not expected for a read-heavy platform.

Resources