Skip to main content
Glama

Isc Sans

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown) that complement but do not contradict the annotations. This provides a fuller picture of what the tool does without redundancy.

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 coherent paragraph, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value (purpose, mechanics, output format, use cases). It is concise without being terse, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve scanability.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: input (URL, optional max_links), process (fetch, extract), output format (markdown blob), and placement (site-root/llms.txt). The use cases provide context for selection.

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% for 2 parameters, and the schema descriptions are already clear. The description adds no additional detail about parameter meaning, format, or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Thus a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('generate llms.txt') and clearly states the tool's purpose: fetching a URL and producing a standard-format file for AI crawlers. It also lists concrete use cases, differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 advises when to use the tool (e.g., 'getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project'). It does not state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the use cases are clear and sufficient for an AI agent.

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

All Isc Sans 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 overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim all handle factual queries), which could confuse an agent. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so the confusion is moderate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities). A few irregular verbs (forget, recall, remember) and diverse prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) lower consistency slightly.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high but each serves a distinct purpose within a broad domain (data querying, prediction markets, security, memory, etc.). The number feels slightly excessive for a single server, but not extreme.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers many aspects of data retrieval, prediction market analysis, and security checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated WHOIS or CVE lookup), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources