Skip to main content
Glama

Magic 8 Ball

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard markdown. No contradiction with 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a list of use cases. Front-loaded with the main action, no 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 2 parameters with full schema coverage and annotations provided, the description is mostly complete. It explains the process and output clearly. Could be slightly more detailed on output format but sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds minimal new info about parameters beyond what the schema provides, only implying the URL usage and noting the max_links limit is already in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it generates an llms.txt file for a URL. The verb and resource are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence', though the distinct purpose is evident.

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?

Explicitly lists three use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, auditing competitors. Provides clear context for when to use, but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.

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

All Magic 8 Ball 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) share similar routing and could cause confusion for an agent. The memory tools and novelty tool are distinct. Overall, ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Minor deviations like 'search_within' and 'magic_8_ball_ask' do not break the pattern. High consistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server is on the heavier side for a single MCP server. However, given the broad domain coverage (financials, economics, prediction markets, etc.), each tool serves a distinct purpose. Bordering on too many, but justified by scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a comprehensive range of data research operations: querying, deep research, entity profiling, comparisons, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, claim validation, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no data modification tools), but they are out of scope for a query-oriented server.

Resources