Skip to main content
Glama

Geonames

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 indicate safe, idempotent read. Description adds how it works (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, outputs markdown) and output location hint. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences: purpose, process, output, use cases. Nothing redundant, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Simple tool with two parameters, no output schema. Description covers what it does, output format, and use cases. Minor missing details (e.g., error handling) are acceptable for this complexity.

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%, so description adds no new parameter info. Baseline 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 uses specific verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file', clearly stating it produces a standard markdown file for AI crawlers. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation rather than analysis.

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?

Explicitly lists three use cases (client site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing). Does not mention when to avoid using or compare with siblings, but 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 Geonames 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* scanners), and the mix of unrelated domains makes it hard to tell which tool is canonical for a task. The few geographic tools are distinct, but they are buried among dozens of non-geographic tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_geonames, resolve_entity), proper-noun prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern or verb style across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far more than a Geonames-focused server needs, and most are unrelated to geospatial data. The count would be borderline for a general data platform, but it is excessive and unfocused for the stated server name.

Completeness1/5

The geographic surface is severely incomplete: only four tools (search_geonames, get_nearby, find_postal_codes, get_timezone) cover a tiny sliver of typical Geonames functionality like reverse geocoding, elevation, or distance calculations. The many non-geographic tools do not compensate for the missing core domain coverage.

Resources