Skip to main content
Glama

Google_sheets

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description details the process: fetches page, extracts title/description/links, emits markdown. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with three sentences covering purpose, process, and use cases. It is well-structured but could be slightly improved with bullet points or clearer separation of sections.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description explains the output format and usage context thoroughly. For a simple tool with clear purpose, it provides sufficient completeness.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond noting url and max_links as inputs. No additional semantic meaning is provided.

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 verb (generate) and resource (llms.txt). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on llms.txt generation, a unique capability among the listed tools.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor AI visibility. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to sibling tools.

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

All Google_sheets 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly identical: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly the same, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping research/query purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions both act as discovery entry points, while the five polymarket tools differentiate primarily through intricate details that are easy to confuse.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed across the set: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun_verb (sheets_append, sheets_create), noun_noun (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile), and bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe). The sheets tools are internally consistent but the broader collection has no uniform pattern, with awkward names like pipeworx_trending and search_within.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. The Google Sheets portion accounts for only 5 tools, while the majority are highly specialized Pipeworx and Polymarket tools that could be consolidated or dramatically reduced. The count feels inflated relative to the advertised 'Google_sheets' server name and its actual core purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Google_sheets, the essential operations exist (create, read, write, append, list structure), but there is no delete/clear range tool and no way to add a new sheet to an existing spreadsheet. For the broader data/research scope, important lifecycles are missing (e.g., no direct way to write Pipeworx results into Sheets, no update for subscriptions, only cancel). The set falls short of fully covering either domain.

Resources