Skip to main content
Glama

Hud

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing that the tool fetches external URLs, extracts content, and emits a standard markdown format, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, readable paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., 'so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly' is implied) but is generally efficient.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its output format, and use cases. No gaps identified.

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% (both url and max_links described). The description mentions 'any URL' but doesn't elaborate on max_links beyond schema defaults. It adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it generates a production-ready llms.txt file by fetching a page and extracting key info. The title and description are aligned, and the tool is clearly distinguished from siblings like ai_visibility_check.

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 indexing, own project, competitor audit), providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the sibling list implies differentiation.

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

All Hud 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, validate_claim) overlap in functionality, which could confuse an agent. The Polymarket and HUD subgroups are well-separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use multiple styles: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), prefixed groups (hud_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and standalone verbs (forget, recall). While subgroups are consistent, the overall set lacks a uniform pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server offers broad data and analytics capabilities. The count is on the high side but justified by the range of features (HUD, general queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). Some tools are highly specialized.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers housing data, multi-source querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., deeper user account management), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources