Skip to main content
Glama

Huggingface

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe operations; description adds process details (fetch, extract, emit) and output format. No contradictions.

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?

Three compact sentences plus bullet use cases. Front-loaded with main action, no excess 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?

With good annotations and full schema, description explains output format and process adequately for a simple tool. Nothing missing.

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 covers both parameters fully (url, max_links). Description adds no extra details beyond naming max_links, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. Distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check by focusing on file generation.

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?

Lists specific use cases (client site indexing, personal project drafting, competitor auditing). Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but context is clear.

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

All Huggingface 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
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes many similarly-named tools, especially the 'ask_pipeworx' variants and the multiple polymarket tools, which could cause confusion. However, each tool has a detailed description specifying its unique purpose, so an agent reading carefully can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the set: Huggingface tools use 'get_', 'list_', 'search_' prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use varied verbs like 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and others. There is no overall pattern or convention, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the server is heavily loaded. While each tool has a distinct role, the scope combines two large domains (Huggingface and Pipeworx), leading to a tool count well above the typical 3-15 range for a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Huggingface model/dataset queries, Pipeworx data lookups, subscription management, and memory tools. However, it lacks write operations for Huggingface (e.g., uploading models/datasets) and some lifecycle operations, leaving noticeable gaps.

Resources