Skip to main content
Glama

Legislation Uk

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 declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it 'fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard format', which aligns with annotations. It does not contradict and provides moderate additional detail about the process.

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 front-loaded with the main action, followed by process details and use cases. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

The description covers the output format ('standard llms.txt markdown', 'single text blob') despite no output schema. With only 2 parameters both well-documented in schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete for accurate tool 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%: both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra beyond the schema (e.g., 'default 25, max 50' for max_links is already in the schema). 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 clearly states the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context 'for any URL so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact output format and use case, such as auditing competitor AI presence.

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: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing competitors. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the provided examples give clear context for appropriate usage.

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

All Legislation Uk 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
Disambiguation2/5

The legislation-specific tools are distinct, but the server bundles dozens of unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/AI-visibility tools, making the set's purpose unclear. Several near-identical pairs exist: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would struggle to know which tool is the right entry point.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: snake_case dominates, but camelCase appears in ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, generate_llms_txt, and pipeworx_feedback. There is also inconsistency in verb style — get_/search_/list_ coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe. The legislation tools themselves follow a clean get_legislation* pattern, but the wider set does not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server named 'Legislation Uk' where only 4 tools actually relate to UK legislation. The remaining 31 tools appear to belong to a broader data/prediction-market platform, which suggests severe scope creep or a mislabeled assembly. This bloats the surface area and makes the server harder for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the stated UK-legislation purpose, the core read-and-search workflow is covered: search_legislation, get_legislation, get_legislation_section, and get_legislation_text together support discovery, metadata, targeted section lookup, and full-text retrieval with version selection. Obvious gaps remain, such as full-text content search and amendment/change history, but agents can complete the primary task of finding and reading legislation. The unrelated tools neither help nor complete this domain.

Resources