Skip to main content
Glama

Federal Register

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/links, and outputs standard markdown. No contradictions; the additional context is valuable.

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 (three sentences), front-loads the primary action, and uses efficient prose. No redundant or trivial sentences.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the process (fetching, extraction, output format) and use cases, leaving no critical gaps.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema; it only reiterates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It uses specific verbs ('generate', 'fetches', 'extracts') and distinguishes the output format and usage contexts, making it unambiguous.

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 three explicit use cases (indexing client sites, drafting for own projects, auditing competitors), offering clear guidance on when to use. It does not formally exclude cases or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

All Federal Register 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps heavily with them. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover similar company/factual research territory, creating frequent selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: descriptive lowercase phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, valid claim) coexist with verb_noun (search_documents, recent_rules) and inconsistent underscores (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, resolve_entity). There is no single recognizable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Federal Register' but only 3 of 34 tools (search_documents, recent_rules, get_document) relate to that domain. The other 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx data and prediction-market suite, making the count extreme and inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Federal Register domain, the surface is minimal: search, recent listing, and single-document retrieval, with no docket browsing, full-text search within documents, or agency-specific navigation. The broader Pipeworx capability set is comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's name, leaving obvious gaps for the actual purpose.

Resources