Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds behavioral details: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and outputs standard markdown. It could be more transparent about potential limitations (e.g., handling of large pages or dynamic content), but overall it's adequate.

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: it states the tool's action, explains the process, and lists use cases in a single paragraph with no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and covers the process and use cases. No critical missing information.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (url and max_links). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema, mentioning only the default/max for max_links which is already in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for any URL, explaining the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which relate to llms.txt 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 description explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the unique purpose clear.

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

All Odds Api 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

Most tools have distinct scopes, and the long cross-referencing descriptions help a lot. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx by the server's own description, and the polymarket_* family plus ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping boundaries that could mislead an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_odds, list_sports, resolve_entity, and subscribe. A few exceptions such as odds_api_quota, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, and recall break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Odds Api'. Many tools are meta-platform utilities — memory, feedback, trending, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation — that have no obvious connection to an odds API and make the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, get_scores, quota tracking, and subscriptions form a coherent read/monitor workflow. Minor gaps exist — no historical odds or a single-event detail endpoint — but agents can complete core odds research and monitoring tasks without dead ends.

Resources