Skip to main content
Glama

Macro Snapshot

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?

The description explains the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/links, emits markdown) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent with the description, and no contradictions exist.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and listing use cases efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or wasted words.

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, rich annotations), the description covers purpose, use cases, and output format ('single text blob'). It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters 'url' and 'max_links'; it merely mentions 'for any URL' which aligns with the first parameter.

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 AI crawlers, specifying the action (generate), resource (llms.txt), and context (any URL). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on this specific output format, which is unique among the listed 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 provides clear use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own projects, or auditing competitors. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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

All Macro Snapshot 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy heavily overlapping space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta version explicitly noted as currently identical to the stable one. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research and macro_snapshot/indicator further blur boundaries, so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong entry point despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_first or domain_prefix pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, indicator, macro_snapshot, and recent_alerts use noun phrases, but the style is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the surface is heavy and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the server covers many domains, several tools are near-duplicates or conveniences (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence, indicator) that could be consolidated.

Completeness5/5

For its apparent scope—structured data Q&A, grounded research, entity comparison, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory—the tool set covers the full lifecycle: query, ground, verify, research, compare, monitor, subscribe, alert, and manage state. There are no obvious dead ends; even supporting workflows like discover_tools and suggest_questions are provided.

Resources