Skip to main content
Glama

Gnews

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?

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, so description complements without contradicting.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently covers what, how, and why.

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 low complexity, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fully explains the output (single text blob) and the process. No missing information for an 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. Description mentions 'Full URL' and 'max number of link entries' but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Clearly states it generates an llms.txt file for a URL, specifying the action (generate), resource (llms.txt), and what it extracts (title, description, key links). Distinguished from 43 sibling tools, none of which have similar functionality.

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?

Lists concrete use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting your own project's llms.txt, or auditing a competitor. Does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextually appropriate.

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

All Gnews 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but there is some overlap, especially among prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) and between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. Agents might occasionally select the wrong tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., ai_visibility_check vs discover_tools). Some names are descriptive but inconsistent in style (subscribe, unsubscribe, list_subscriptions). Pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server covers many domains (news, financials, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory). While each tool has a justification, the count feels heavy for a single server, and some tools could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool set spans a wide range of data sources and operations, but there are notable gaps. For news, only search and top headlines exist without advanced filtering. Prediction markets lack order placement tools. The broad scope means depth is sacrificed in some areas.

Resources