Skip to main content
Glama

Hash

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds process details (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) that are consistent with these hints and provide extra behavioral context, meeting the bar for transparency with annotations present.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, explains the process in one sentence, and lists use cases in a clear bullet-point style. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and the extraction logic. It covers the essential completeness needed without being overly verbose.

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 ('url' and 'max_links') fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 the tool generates an llms.txt file for any URL for AI crawlers. The title and description align, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'deep_research' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by specifying a unique output format and use case.

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 specific use cases (client site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing). While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, the context signals show no directly overlapping siblings, making the guidance adequate.

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

All Hash 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes despite overlapping domains like prediction markets, but detailed descriptions help agents differentiate. A few tools like `ask_pipeworx` and `deep_research` could be confused without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing `ask_`, `polymarket_`, `scan_`, `recent_`, `entity_`, etc., with no unifying convention. The server name 'Hash' mismatches the tool set entirely.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a focused server, but the set covers many areas. The count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, yet each tool has a clear purpose.

Completeness2/5

The tool set feels like a collection of unrelated utilities rather than a coherent domain. Core hashing functionality is minimal, while other areas like prediction markets are over-represented with gaps elsewhere.

Resources