Skip to main content
Glama

N2yo

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 readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds that the tool performs a network fetch, extracts specific components, and emits a markdown text blob. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not address error handling or edge cases.

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 tightly written sentences: purpose, process/outcome, then use cases. Every sentence carries weight, with no filler or redundant phrasing. The structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and clear safety annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and when to use it. No output schema is present, but the description explicitly states the return format ('single text blob'), which is sufficient.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, describing url and max_links in detail. The description's mention of 'key links' and 'link entries' is tangential and adds no semantic value beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 opening sentence clearly specifies the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, and details the process (fetches, extracts, emits) and output format. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check which focus on analyzing AI presence rather than generating 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 explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting llms.txt for a project, and auditing a competitor's site. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, which prevents a top score.

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

All N2yo 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

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and the five Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) require careful reading to distinguish. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all handle company data, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are clearly paired. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent will frequently misselect among these clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase with underscores, so the style is internally consistent. However, the pattern is mixed: many use verb_noun (get_positions, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity) but several are noun-first or noun-only (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). There's no strong verb/noun convention across the set, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the set exceeds the 16–25 'heavy' range and sits in the 'too many' band. The server name suggests a focused satellite-tracking service, yet only 3 tools (get_positions, get_visual_passes, whats_above) serve that purpose; the other 31 cover unrelated domains like data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. Even as a general-purpose research platform, the count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface is broad, covering satellite tracking, data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, and memory, and within each cluster the main operations exist (e.g., subscription lifecycle, edge analysis + fill risk). However, the scattered scope creates gaps: there's no direct raw-data fetch tool (everything goes through ask_pipeworx), no general web search, and the presence of unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) suggests the domain boundaries are unclear. For its stated satellite purpose, the satellite tools are thin (no TLE, no catalog, no detailed orbit info).

Resources