Skip to main content
Glama

Intact

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world nature. Description adds fetching and extraction behavior, but does not detail failure modes or rate limits. Baseline 3 because annotations carry the bulk of safety information.

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 sentences with no waste: first defines purpose and audience, second explains process, third lists use cases. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, output format, and use cases. Lacks detail on error handling but sufficient for agent invocation.

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% with clear descriptions. Tool description does not add extra meaning beyond mentioning 'key links' implied in output. Baseline 3 as schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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 for any URL, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on generation of the file itself, not auditing or scanning.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, auditing competitor). Implicitly suggests when to use but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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

All Intact 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

Most tools have strong, detailed descriptions with explicit usage guidance, but a few clusters are genuinely ambiguous: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case and most follow an imperative verb-first pattern such as resolve_entity, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names like entity_profile, bet_research, and interaction_count deviate, but the consistent underscore style and clear prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ keep the set predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 top-level tools, the surface is heavy, and several tools are near-duplicates or narrow variants of the same core capability. The broad scope explains some of the count, but the agent-facing API would be cleaner with fewer, more consolidated entry points.

Completeness5/5

The set provides strong lifecycle coverage for its main workflows: querying and grounding, deep research, entity resolution, company profiling, comparisons, Polymarket edge analysis with fill-risk checks, memory storage, and subscription management. There are no obvious dead ends that would prevent an agent from completing a typical task.

Resources