Skip to main content
Glama

Htmltext

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' This explains the internal process beyond annotations.

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 two sentences plus a bulleted list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and the process. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for both parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It mentions extraction of 'key links' but doesn't elaborate on max_links usage.

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 verb 'generate', the resource 'production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', and the purpose 'so AI crawlers ... can index the site cleanly'. It differentiates from siblings like extract_links and scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on the specific llms.txt generation task.

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 provides explicit use cases: '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.' It does not mention when not to use, but the clarity of use cases compensates.

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

All Htmltext 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools form overlapping clusters (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded, the five polymarket_* tools, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions) that could cause misselection on first glance. The detailed descriptions mostly clarify the boundaries, but the overlaps are real and require careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is overwhelmingly snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (ask_, extract_, generate_, list_, resolve_, subscribe), which is predictable. A few noun-style or special-form names (entity_profile, html_to_text, recent_changes, polymarket_edges) break the pattern, but these are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools the surface is heavy, especially for a server named 'Htmltext' where only 4 of 34 tools relate to HTML. Even accounting for the broad data/research domain, the set includes several redundant research and Polymarket helpers that push it past a well-scoped count.

Completeness4/5

The major subdomains are well covered: HTML extraction, entity/data research, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions all have the core operations needed with no obvious dead ends. Some niches are shallow (HTML lacks a general fetch/render tool; scan_dependency is a one-off), but agents can work around these gaps.

Resources