Skip to main content
Glama

Fmp

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).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds non-redundant process details: fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting a markdown blob. The output format is explicitly stated as a single text blob ready for site-root placement, which complements the safety metadata. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 compact—two sentences including a short 'Useful for' list—and front-loads the main purpose and output. No filler words or repeated schema details; every phrase contributes to understanding.

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 tool's modest complexity and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, process, output shape, and likely use cases. It doesn't explain error cases or JS-render caveats, but for a read-only generator this is sufficient; the output is described even though no output schema exists.

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%: both url and max_links have descriptions. The tool description reinforces that url is the site to summarize and mentions 'any URL' but does not add details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific action ('Generate a production-ready llms.txt file') and clearly states the resource (llms.txt) and purpose (indexing for AI crawlers). It distinguishes the tool by naming the output format and use cases (client sites, own projects, competitor auditing), so it doesn't rely on the title alone.

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 'Useful for:' contexts—indexing a client site, drafting for own project, or auditing competitors—which tells when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top tier but gives clear situational guidance.

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

All Fmp 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

C2.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap in purpose: quote/quote_short/historical_price/intraday for price data; balance_sheet/income_statement/cash_flow for financials; search_symbol/search_name/discover_tools for lookup; and a cluster of Pipeworx routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) with unclear boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case, but naming conventions vary widely: noun phrases (balance_sheet, entity_profile), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), verb+noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and adjective+noun (historical_price, recent_alerts). No single pattern dominates, making it harder to guess tool names.

Tool Count2/5

55 tools is excessive for a server labeled 'Fmp'. The core financial data tools are perhaps 20-25, while the rest are unrelated: memory utilities, prediction market analyzers, web scraping, and meta-routing tools. This bloated set dilutes the server's purpose and burdens the agent with irrelevant options.

Completeness2/5

For the declared domain (FMP financials), the set covers the main statements but lacks tools like segment data, insider trades (listed as paid), or ownership details (also paid). Conversely, it includes many tools for prediction markets and general data retrieval that don't belong here, creating a mismatch between server name and actual capability.

Resources