Skip to main content
Glama

Kegg

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it fetches a page and emits markdown, but does not disclose network dependencies or potential latency, which would add value beyond 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 sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, 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.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and straightforward functionality, the description fully covers what the tool does, its inputs, and its output (a text blob ready for deployment). No gaps.

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 both parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default and max for max_links are in the schema). 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 uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('llms.txt file'), and clearly states the goal of enabling AI crawlers to index sites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on file generation rather than analysis.

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 site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when NOT to use or compare to alternatives, missing full exclusion guidance.

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

All Kegg 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly described distinct purposes, but several overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all occupy neighboring query/discovery territory. The Polymarket and memory tool families, by contrast, are well differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage) and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the toolkit.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and the count is especially inappropriate because the server is named Kegg but only find, get_entry, and list_database relate to KEGG bioinformatics. The remaining 31 tools span unrelated domains (generic data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning), making the scope feel like several products merged into one.

Completeness2/5

As a KEGG server, the surface is severely thin: three read-only tools with no pathway mapping, sequence search, or cross-reference utilities. The Pipeworx research and Polymarket betting subsystems are more complete, but their presence under a Kegg server makes the overall surface incoherent rather than complete.

Resources