Skip to main content
Glama

Gtin

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false/true, so the safety profile is clear from annotations. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/links, and outputs standard markdown. This aligns with annotations, but does not disclose any surprising behavior beyond what is obvious. The description adds moderate context but not enough to raise the score higher given annotation coverage.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for use cases). Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. Scoring 4 instead of 5 due to minor structural improvement possible.

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's complexity (2 parameters, simple read-only behavior, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it fetches, what format it outputs, and common use cases. It is complete for an AI agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The description mentions the URL and implies a limit on links (max_links) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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, using verbs 'generate', 'fetches', 'extracts', and 'emits'. It specifies the resource (llms.txt) and distinguishes from sibling tools by listing concrete use cases (indexing client sites, drafting for own project, auditing competitor).

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's site indexed, drafting for one's own project, or auditing a competitor. It implies when to use this tool versus alternatives, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, which would strengthen the guidance.

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

All Gtin 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle query routing, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research blur the line between market scanning, edge detection, and fill-risk analysis. Several pairs (entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap substantially.

Naming Consistency2/5

The tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (validate_gtin, list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt), brand-prefixed groups (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*), and bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The server is named after GTIN/barcodes, yet most tools are branded Pipeworx or Polymarket, making the set feel incoherently named.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the threshold where a typical agent can comfortably navigate the surface, especially since they span unrelated domains: barcode validation, data lookups, prediction-market arbitrage, memory storage, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count reflects an overgrown grab bag rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness2/5

There is no coherent domain to assess completeness against: for the server's apparent GTIN/barcode purpose, only gtin_check_digit and validate_gtin exist (and not even a lookup for product data by GTIN). For the broader Pipeworx platform hinted at by most tools, the surface is scattered, with deep coverage of prediction-market edges but arbitrary one-off utilities elsewhere.

Resources