Skip to main content
Glama

musicurainz

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 cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool 'fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format,' and that the output is 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt.' This goes beyond the annotations by describing the internal process and output format.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states the primary function, second explains the process/output, third lists use cases. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching a URL, extracting content, generating a text file), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, process, output format, use cases, and all parameters are described in the schema. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement that the output is a single text blob.

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%, and both parameters have descriptive comments (url: 'Full URL of the site to summarize', max_links: 'Maximum number of link entries to include (default 25, max 50)'). The description implicitly reinforces the url semantics via 'Fetches the page' but adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL.' It clearly states the tool's function (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits markdown), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence that audit or check AI presence rather than generate a file.

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 concrete use cases: '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 gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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

All musicurainz 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are crisply separated (memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, single-entity vs compare vs profile), but several broad entry points overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very close variants, and discover_tools/suggest_questions/ask_pipeworx all serve discovery/routing. Descriptions help, but an agent can still easily select one of the duplicate or adjacent tools instead of the intended one.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case and there are coherent families (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, search_*, get_*), but there is no consistent verb_noun convention: noun-phrase names like recent_alerts and pipeworx_trending coexist with single verbs like remember and forget and domain-prefixed nouns like polymarket_edges. Mixed, but still reasonably navigable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the surface is well past the comfortable 3-15 tool scope and even beyond the 16-25 heavy range unless the server has one explicit mega-purpose. The set also sprawls across music lookup, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, npm checks, LLM visibility, memory, and subscriptions, so no single coherent job emerges.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant read-only research workflow, the set is remarkably complete: discover tools, grounded and ungrounded asking, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, recent changes, comparisons, claim verification, search_within, plus full memory and subscription lifecycles. Minor gaps include the shallow music side relative to the rest of the server and the absence of an explicit source catalog.

Resources