Skip to main content
Glama

nouel

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).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail — that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown — which is not visible in annotations. Minor gap: no mention of edge cases like unreachable URLs.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the process, output format, and use cases. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, process, output, and usage scenarios. It could mention failure handling (e.g., what if a URL is unreachable), but overall it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (url and max_links) with clear descriptions. The tool description's references to 'key links' and 'standard llms.txt format' offer only mild additional context for max_links, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation.

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 'Useful for' list specifies three concrete scenarios: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for one's own project, and auditing a competitor. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

All nouel 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

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all query Pipeworx data; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets). Descriptions help distinguish them, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive but mix conventions: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_prizes_by_year), others are noun_verb (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and a few are single verbs (remember, recall). No strong pattern, but still readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server covers a wide range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, company analysis, Nobel prizes, memory, subscriptions). The count is high but each tool serves a specific purpose, justifying the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its stated domains: data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct bet placement on Polymarket), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources