Skip to main content
Glama

Macvendors

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard markdown. It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond them.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, how it works, and use cases. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with robust annotations and complete schema, the description covers the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and use cases adequately. No output schema needed.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (url, max_links). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the scope 'for any URL'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the unique output format and use cases like indexing a client's site or auditing a competitor.

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 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.' It implicitly suggests when not to use (other indexing tasks), but lacks an explicit exclusion statement.

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

All Macvendors 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta variant currently identical to stable. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also blur boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve discovery. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lower_snake_case and many follow a clear verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt). However, there are notable deviations: entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes, and bet_research lead with nouns or adjectives. The style is readable and predictable in clusters, but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many', and the server name Macvendors suggests a narrow MAC-lookup service, yet most tools belong to a much broader Pipeworx data/prediction-market platform. Several tools are near-duplicates or micro-variants (three ask_pipeworx versions, six polymarket tools). The set would be more appropriately split or heavily consolidated.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual broad research platform domain, the surface is fairly complete: discovery, routing, grounded answers, entity profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, semantic search, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update tool and no batch MAC lookup, but agents can generally complete workflows without dead ends.

Resources