Skip to main content
Glama

Medicare Coverage

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains the internal behavior: fetching the page, extracting title/description/key links, and emitting standard llms.txt markdown. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by detailing the steps involved. No contradictions with annotations; the description adds valuable context about the process and output.

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 succinct: three sentences covering purpose, process, and output, followed by a bullet list of use cases. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant or unnecessary details.

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?

For a simple tool, the description covers key aspects: what it does, how it works (fetching and extraction), and the output format (standard llms.txt). It could mention error handling (e.g., unreachable URLs) or prerequisites, but these are minor omissions. Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (url, max_links) with clear descriptions and default/limits. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: generating an llms.txt file for a given URL. It specifies the output format (standard llms.txt markdown) and lists concrete use cases (client indexing, personal projects, competitor auditing). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence', which serve different purposes.

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, such as 'getting a client's site indexed by AI' or 'auditing a competitor'. This gives clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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

All Medicare Coverage 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes Medicare-specific tools with many unrelated general-purpose tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, remember), and there are multiple similar ask_pipeworx variants. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool is appropriate for a given task without confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a medicare_ prefix with underscores, others use generic verbs like forget, recall, or compound names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research. There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb structure.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on 'Medicare Coverage'. Many tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_dependency) are unrelated to Medicare and should be in separate servers, inflating the count and diluting focus.

Completeness4/5

The Medicare-specific tools cover a broad range: NCDs, LCDs, NCAs, enrollment, DME, Part D, hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and provider data. Minor gaps include Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Supplement, but the coverage is largely comprehensive.

Resources