Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 that the tool fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. This is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. The description adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It includes the output format and concrete use cases without superfluous content. Perfectly concise.

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 the low parameter count (2), full schema coverage, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and output. It explains the standard output format and typical usage. Could mention character limits or error cases but is complete enough for an AI agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (url and max_links). The description explains that url is the site to summarize and that max_links controls the number of link entries (with defaults and max). This adds functional context beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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), the resource (llms.txt file), and the context (for any URL, for AI crawlers). It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence by specifically targeting llms.txt generation. The use cases further clarify its 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 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.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Fcc 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around the same core purpose: the three ask_pipeworx variants, the three census reverse-geocoders, and the six Polymarket analysis tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate most choices, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine ambiguity. An agent could easily select the wrong tool in these overlapping families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-initial actions (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun-initial compound names (census_block, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* family is internally consistent, but the set as a whole lacks a uniform verb_noun convention. Single-word verbs like remember, recall, and forget further break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25 and includes clear redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, county_for_point is a thin wrapper over the same service as census_area/census_block, and scan_competitor_ai_presence just loops ai_visibility_check. The broad scope does not justify this many tools, and the set would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has solid lifecycle coverage: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and company research has resolve_entity/entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct pipeworx:// citation-fetching tool), but no critical dead ends that would cause agent failures.

Resources