Skip to main content
Glama

Gdelt

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the fetching, extraction, and markdown emission process, which complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 a single concise paragraph that front-loads the action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, inputs, and output format. No gaps remain.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (url, max_links). The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool generates a 'production-ready llms.txt file' for any URL, specifying the extracted fields (title, description, key links) and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform similar 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 enumerates three concrete use cases (indexing a client's site, drafting for one's own project, auditing a competitor), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Given the niche functionality and lack of overlapping siblings, this is adequate.

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

All Gdelt 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 families overlap heavily—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions—and the five polymarket_* tools all circle around detecting or trading edges. However, detailed descriptions and distinct scopes (single vs multi-part vs grounded vs claim verdict, scan vs arbitrage vs fill risk) keep most boundaries usable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a clear verb_noun or resource pattern (search_articles, compare_entities, list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget). Minor deviations exist—ask_pipeworx has no underscore and some names are product-prefixed (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges)—but the overall pattern is still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the set spans unrelated domains—GDELT news, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation—so it feels like several servers mashed together rather than one coherent scope.

Completeness4/5

As a broad read-only data/research toolkit, coverage is strong: ask_pipeworx routes to thousands of sources, entity/compare/recent_changes/validate cover lookups, memory lifecycle is complete, and subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel. Minor gaps exist—no article-level GDELT aggregates beyond the four news tools and no direct update/delete for llms.txt—but there are no critical dead ends.

Resources