Skip to main content
Glama

Lyrics Ovh

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. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the tool fetches an external URL and extracts content. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior; the description clarifies the outbound call aspect, but lacks details on error handling or fetch failures.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, process, use cases. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, earning its place efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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), the description covers purpose, parameters, and output format adequately. Minor gaps exist, such as omission of error behavior or exact output type, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this context.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'url' and 'max_links', staying at the baseline for schema-rich tools.

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 tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifically for AI crawlers. It details the process (fetch, extract, emit) and output format, distinguishing it from any 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 lists explicit use cases (client indexing, personal projects, competitor auditing), providing clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, missing some comparative context.

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

All Lyrics Ovh 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route to the same 5,564 tools, differing only in grounding behavior. suggest and lyrics both look up music but in different ways; suggest is broader while lyrics is exact. The core tools are distinct, but the multiple pipeworx variants and music tools create ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent. Most tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities), but several use verb phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence) and some use short nouns (lyrics, suggest). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; 'ask_pipeworx' variants mix imperative with domain words, and 'recall'/'remember' are verbs without objects.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server covers a wide domain (company research, prediction markets, news, weather, lyrics, memory, subscriptions, etc.). While this is many tools, each has a specific purpose and the variety matches the stated 'universal router' / 'thousands of data sources' value prop. It could be trimmed slightly, but the count is justified by the breadth.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose: unstructured lookup (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded), deep multi-source research (deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage scanning, memory, subscriptions, and even feedback/governance tools. It covers all common patterns in data retrieval and has distinct tools for edge cases, making it hard to find obvious gaps.

Resources