Skip to main content
Glama

Market Recap

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?

Adds behavioral details beyond annotations by describing the fetch-extract-emit workflow and the output as a single text blob. Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description supplements rather than contradicts 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then process, then use cases. Every sentence contributes value with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return format ('single text blob'), the standard llms.txt format, and practical use cases. With only 2 simple parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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% and already describes both parameters with meaning. The description only rephrases 'any URL' and does not add new parameter semantics, 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?

Clearly states it generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific actions (fetches, extracts title/description/key links) and emits standard markdown format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_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?

Provides 'Useful for' scenarios (client indexing, drafting for own project, competitor auditing) that frame when to apply the tool. Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the use cases give clear context.

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

All Market Recap 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

Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple AI visibility tools, ask_pipeworx vs deep_research). Agents will have difficulty choosing the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of styles (snake_case, descriptive phrases) without a consistent verb_noun pattern. For example, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' have different naming conventions. This inconsistency makes it harder for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server. Many tools could be merged (e.g., multiple polymarket tools). The count feels excessive for the scope, causing cognitive load and potential selection errors.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains (prediction markets, company data, fact-checking, etc.) but has notable gaps (e.g., limited entity types for company/drug only). Redundancy in some areas makes the set feel bloated rather than complete.

Resources