Skip to main content
Glama

Mediastack

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds the process details: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard llms.txt format, and output is a text blob ready to drop at site-root. No contradictions.

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?

Description is three sentences with no filler. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second explains process, third lists use cases. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, process, output format, and use cases. No gaps remain.

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 description does not add meaning beyond what schema already provides for both 'url' and 'max_links'. The baseline of 3 is correct given high coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt file', clearly indicating the tool's output. It distinguishes from all 38 sibling tools by describing a unique function (generating an AI crawling index file). No sibling tool appears to do this.

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 concrete use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. Does not state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the provided context strongly implies appropriate usage.

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

All Mediastack 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a detailed description clarifying its precise purpose, and even closely related tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) are clearly differentiated by behavior and use case. No two tools appear to serve the same function.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: many follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), while others are noun-based (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or single verbs (subscribe, remember). This mix reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server is quite large for an MCP server. While many tools are justified by the broad domain coverage, the high number can overwhelm agents and increase cognitive load, making it feel somewhat bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains (company data, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.), and the generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools gateways to thousands of data sources, effectively filling gaps. However, some areas lack dedicated tools (e.g., weather, real estate) beyond the generic query.

Resources