Skip to main content
Glama

Ipqualityscore

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful detail: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, outputs standard markdown. It does not cover potential edge cases (e.g., large pages), but is sufficient for most agents.

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 informative sentences plus a bullet list of uses. It is front-loaded with the main action and free of fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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, good annotations), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, input requirements, output format, and typical use cases. No gaps remain.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema descriptions. The tool description reinforces the purpose of the URL parameter and mentions link extraction, but the schema already documents both parameters adequately. Baseline 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 states a clear verb ('generate'), resource ('llms.txt file for any URL'), and purpose ('so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which are mostly unrelated (e.g., checks, research).

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 explicitly lists three use cases (client indexing, personal project, competitor auditing) and implies the tool is for generating llms.txt files. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear and no sibling tool offers similar functionality.

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

All Ipqualityscore 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions) have heavily overlapping purposes, and the descriptions rely on subtle caveats to differentiate them. Similarly, entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence blur boundaries. Only the four check_* tools (email/ip/phone/url) are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

There are some consistent prefixes (check_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*) but the overall set mixes verb_noun, noun_verb, and standalone adjectival names (deep_research, entity_profile, bet_research, validate_claim, recent_changes). The pattern is readable within families but chaotic across the whole surface, with no unified convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server branded 'Ipqualityscore', especially since only 4 tools actually serve that fraud-checking domain. The rest sprawls into general data research, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions, and npm dependency scanning — a far larger scope than the name implies. This is a scattershot collection rather than a coherent offering.

Completeness2/5

The IPQS core domain is thin (only email, IP, phone, URL checks) and missing common fraud-screening operations like transaction scoring or domain reputation. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is over-complete with redundant query paths, while unrelated subsystems (memory, subscriptions, feedback) create dead ends that don't serve the server's apparent purpose. The lack of a clear domain makes genuine completeness impossible to assess or claim.

Resources