Skip to main content
Glama

Movies

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. Added

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, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it fetches the page, extracts specific elements, and emits a standard markdown blob ready for placement. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining network access and output usage.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a structured 'Useful for' list. Every sentence provides meaningful information without redundancy or filler. It is well-organized and directly aligned with the tool's function.

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 and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input (URL), the process (fetch/extract), the output format (standard llms.txt markdown), and where to place it. It also covers use cases. There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (url and max_links) with defaults. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond saying it 'extracts key links', which loosely maps to max_links. It does not enhance or clarify the parameters further, 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 tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with specific verbs and resources: 'Generate', 'llms.txt file', 'any URL'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creating llms.txt, unlike ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence. The process (fetches, extracts, emits) and output format are explicitly described.

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 clear usage contexts: '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 doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but it gives enough context to decide. Sibling tools are mostly unrelated, so no confusion.

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

All Movies 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

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all pull overlapping company data. The server is named 'Movies' but only 4 of 35 tools relate to movies, making it impossible to infer what the tool set is actually for.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_movies, get_tv_schedule), bare nouns (remember, recall), brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and ad-hoc verbs (ask_pipeworx vs validate_claim). There is no consistent convention; even the pipeworx family uses ask_ vs grounded vs beta suffixes that don't follow a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a single server, and for a 'Movies' server it is extreme overkill since the vast majority have nothing to do with movies. Even if the intent was a general data/betting server, 35 tools exceed the upper bound of the well-scoped range and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness2/5

As a movies/TV server it is severely incomplete: there is no get_movie, no reviews, no watchlist, no person/actor search—only search_movies, search_tv_shows, get_tv_show, and get_tv_schedule. If instead the domain is Pipeworx data, coverage is better but still lacks mutation tools (e.g., no create/update for subscriptions beyond subscribe/unsubscribe) and the movie tools become dead weight.

Resources