Skip to main content
Glama

Findymail

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 declare it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown format. This explains the behavioral traits beyond the 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 concise, with two clear sentences and a bullet list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the main action and is free of unnecessary words.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: input, process, output format, and use cases. It covers what is needed for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the parameters (url and max_links). It mentions extraction but not how max_links impacts behavior.

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 a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the extraction process and output format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on llms.txt 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 explicit use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, auditing competitors. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the use cases provide clear guidance.

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

All Findymail 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research/validate_claim/ask_pipeworx all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog, and ai_visibility_check is essentially wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries between query, research, and verification tools are genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain pattern: ask_pipeworx, findymail_find_email, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and generate_llms_txt each use a different structural convention. The mix of brand prefixes, domain prefixes, and bare commands makes the naming feel ad hoc rather than systematic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and reflects a server that bundles at least five distinct concerns: email lookup, structured data research, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Most individual tools earn their place, but the count is too high for coherent tool selection in a single MCP server.

Completeness3/5

Coverage is broad and mostly self-sufficient for the Pipeworx data ecosystem: querying, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, verification, subscriptions, memory, and one-off utilities are all present. There are notable gaps though—there is no tool to fetch a full record from a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and the Findymail side is limited to find/reverse with no verification or bulk capability.

Resources