Skip to main content
Glama

Gov Auctions

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts content, and outputs standard markdown format, which is consistent with annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes meaningfully. No wasted words.

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 two parameters with full schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and output format for an AI agent to use it 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% with both parameters documented. The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema descriptions, so baseline score 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 it generates an llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than scanning.

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 lists three explicit use cases (client site indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

All Gov Auctions 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same question-answering niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by its own description), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim are easy to confuse. The polymarket suite also has overlapping edge/arbitrage/fill-risk boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve onboarding. The verbose descriptions help, but the set as a whole creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (auctions_search, polymarket_edges, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget). Minor inconsistencies exist: auction_lot_details is singular while the auction group is plural, and polymarket_edges versus polymarket_edge_tracker breaks the prefix pattern slightly. Overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Gov Auctions': only 5 tools actually concern auctions, while the rest are general Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools. Even as a general data platform, the count is heavy and includes several overlapping meta-tools.

Completeness4/5

For the auction-specific surface, the set covers search, lot details, closing-soon, historical sold prices, and data coverage, which is a solid read-only lifecycle. The main gaps are non-critical: no auction-category browser, no auction-specific alert/subscription type, and no bidding workflow. The broad research/esolution tools fill in most adjacent data needs even if they dilute the server's stated focus.

Resources