Skip to main content
Glama

Gaming Feeds

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description details the process: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. This adds context beyond the annotations (which already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), such as the crawling and extraction behavior.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero unnecessary words. Each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, output, and use cases.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description clearly states the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'), which is sufficient. The two parameters are well-documented, and the use cases are covered.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds extra value by specifying for 'max_links' the default (25) and maximum (50), which are not in the schema.

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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('llms.txt file'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool focused on AI crawl file 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 provides explicit use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing competitor indexing. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear and helpful.

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

All Gaming Feeds 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 clusters of near-duplicates force careful reading: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily; the five polymarket tools share edge-detection and arbitrage territory; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are easy to confuse. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending also compete as discovery/onboarding entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is surface consistency, but the structural pattern is mixed: verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, resolve_entity), noun_verb (ai_visibility_check), noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_fill_risk), and bare verbs (remember, forget). Prefixes like ask_pipeworx and polymarket create local order, but no server-wide naming convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server named 'Gaming Feeds' is heavily over-scoped; only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed actually serve that purpose. The remaining ~25 tools constitute an unrelated Pipeworx data platform covering queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, making the count feel like a bundled mega-server rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness3/5

For the nominal gaming-feed domain, list/read/fetch plus keyword filtering covers basic consumption, but there is no cross-feed search, feed management, or feed-specific subscription support (subscribe only handles SEC, Polymarket, and FRED streams). The broader data/research surface is comprehensive internally, but that completeness belongs to a different server's purpose.

Resources