Skip to main content
Glama

Jsonschema

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds process details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' This tells the agent the tool performs a network fetch and returns a structured text blob, providing valuable context 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences front-loaded with the primary action, followed by process and use cases. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 simple two-param schema, clear annotations, and the description's coverage of functionality, output format ('single text blob'), and common use cases, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No output schema is present, but the description specifies the return format sufficiently.

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 descriptions for both url and max_links. The description's 'for any URL' aligns with the url parameter but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents parameters.

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+scope: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence or ai_visibility_check, which focus on visibility checks rather than 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?

Provides explicit use cases ('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') that give clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique purpose is evident.

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

All Jsonschema 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

Several tools occupy the same entry-point role (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The Polymarket family is carefully described but still has heavily overlapping discovery/edge surfaces. Only validate_json_schema is unambiguous, and it has no related siblings to clarify its position.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb-first forms (discover_tools, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), noun-first forms (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Prefix conventions are inconsistent—ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes—and almost none of the names reflect the server name Jsonschema.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is already too many, but for a server named Jsonschema only one tool belongs to that domain; the rest form a broad data-research and prediction-market suite. This is an extreme scoping mismatch: the set is simultaneously oversized and almost entirely off-purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a JSON Schema server, the surface is essentially one operation: validate_json_schema. Common schema lifecycle operations—generation, parsing, conversion, ref resolution, linting—are missing, leaving most JSON Schema tasks impossible. The unrelated data-research tools are internally rich, but they do not complete the apparent domain.

Resources